Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

ClaudioSantos violates topic ban??

According to the list op Topic Bans ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs) has a topic ban for al Euthanasia-related articles. As stated on the mentioned page: "ClaudioSantos is topic banned by the Wikipedia community from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed,...". Knowing his habit of connecting the nazi atrocities with eugenetics and euthanasia, I was wondering if he crossed the line. The contested sentence is Although it was not the ideology underlying Nazi atrocities that Sanger found regrettable, it was the methodology.. Violation or not? Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I edited the section "Eugenics" at "Margaret Sanger" article, and that paragraph does deal explicity with "nazi eugenics" not with euthanasia. And clearly my edit and the cited source was referring to "Nazi eugenics" related to "Margaret Sanger" and my edit did not relate nor even mentioned at all euthanasia. And this issue has been discussed and resolved already 3 times, here at the ANI and at one admin-talk-page. And all the times it was concluded that editing eugenics topics is not a violation of the euthanasia topic ban. This user NotBW certainly know this as he has been directly involved. I think he is abusing the ANI and stalking me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Aha, there is the traditional smoke screen and counter accusation. But, my dear Claudio, you are referring to earlier questions in relation to other articles. And here you clearly make the connection nazi atrocities vs. eugenetics movement. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs) has six prior blocks for edit-warring, several of which stem from his relentless efforts to link Planned Parenthood to Nazism and eugenics by any means necessary. He was unblocked early last time because he supposedly understood the error of his ways. Now he's moved on to edit-warring at Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood), pushing the exact same agenda.

  Obviously he's repeatedly trying to force in contentious material and earned a number of blocks, but he's still at it, still refusing to gain consensus on the talk page. How long does this go on? (That is not a rhetorical question - it is addressed to any uninvolved admin reviewing this thread). MastCell ^Talk 21:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

MastCell is another user who has been involved in this attempts to look for an excuse to ban me. My last edit at Margaret Sanger has not violated the 1RR and the prior cases are NOT the case now. Actually my edit was reverted 1 time by NotBW arguing that "he does not believe that I have read the source"; thus clearly baseless assuming bad faith due my edit was almost literally taken from a source which was already accepted as a reliable source for that article. Now, NotBW is trying to abuse the topic ban to enforce a broad ban against me, as it has been attempted 3 times up to now. If it was a content dispute at any rate MasterCell did not even complaint about the phrase but he just came first here also to attempt to enforce a ban against me. And MaterCell was also involved in the prior attempts to extend the euthanasia topic ban to the eugenic topic. So it seems MasterCell is always looking for any excuse to try to resolve the dispute contents by forcing punishments and bans against me. Is he stalking me also?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Knowing your POV-pushing and creativity with the truth, I still do not think I was overly distrustful to you. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I must admit that the sentence is really there in the source. But crucially, the context is totally different. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, this guy edits dishonestly and in bad faith, and has problems understanding written English that severely undermine his ability to edit effectively. Worse, he seems uninterested in improving himself in this regard. When challenged on any of the above, he reacts with hostility and claims of persecution, and rarely sees fit to discuss the actual substance of a dispute.

Take this for what you will; I am apparently risking a permanent ban from Wikipedia just by saying this, as you can see from my talk page. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

[To clarify, I am not familiar with this topic ban or the previous incidents that led to it, and don't take any position on the topic ban itself. I added the above comments because they tend to support some of the things NOTBW and MastCell have said, and also, partly, out of sheer frustration.] Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Factcheker was warned two times because of his proven personal attacks and rude uncivil comments against me. At any rate, for Factchecker I am just a "fucking idiot" -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I did, in fact, say those things, and was indeed warned twice, with the second warning appearing to imply that any subsequent block would be permanent. This really has no bearing on the complaints that I and other editors have raised regarding your actual editing conduct. Regardless of how inappropriately I acted, has it occurred to you that the frequency of personal attacks against you, real or perceived, may have something to do with your own behavior? And has anyone ever made a criticism that you found to be legitimate or worthwhile? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Factchecker, you are simply attempting to legitimate your continuous and very rude personal attacks against me. I have to ask also if you are looking for a revenge against me because you were warned by an admin to stop insulting me?. At any rate I have not to tolerate nor to condone you calling me "fucking idiot" with "stupid reasoning" speaking "gibberish", etc. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"[R]eacts with hostility and claims of persecution, and rarely sees fit to discuss the actual substance of a dispute." Yeah... that. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC) As you already asked for an excuse for your behavior then I solely have to hide it because the above comment is just another personal attack dealing wiht nothing else than me and my alleged reactions. Thts is its content. But you already promised not to repeat that. So let me add, at any rate: I am not able to understand anyone expecting answers from me about any content when it is asked with insults. And let me overreact and exagerate: I also can not support nor undertsand if an inquisitor demands to those tortured to stay focused on the matter of question and not in the brutal manner it is asked. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Last time the issue came up, the limited consensus appeared to be the topic ban didn't cover eugenics in itself. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive716#ClaudioSantos_and_eugenics. Has the topic ban changed since then? If not it was suggested last time there may be merit to expand the topic ban, or if his behaviour is too bad, just banning him completely would I guess be an option. However I wouldn't suggest his editing the topic in itself should lead to any action (his precise editing may be a different matter), particularly since he was aware of the previous discussion so even if a new consensus develops, it seems a bit unfair to take action when he was possibly relying on the previous intepretation. Nil Einne (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem that he is seeking the borders... Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems, you NotBW are the one seeking the borders. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. My point is that it's time to expand the topic ban to include abortion, Planned Parenthood, and eugenics. He's racked up three blocks for edit-warring on these very topics in the past few months. And that's on top of his prior blocks for edit-warring that led to the topic ban from euthanasia. People who edit these topics constructively shouldn't have to deal with this sort of relentlessly tendentious editing. There are actually general sanctions on abortion-related articles which are supposed to prevent this sort of thing: "Any uninvolved admin may impose a topic ban or blocks on disruptive editors for actions including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, excessive incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Such topic bans or blocks may be of up to three months duration." MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

MastCell you always attempt to use any excuse to try this, I believe you are stalking me and less concerned about the disruptions in this wikipedia. Proof: Factchekcer (the user who believes that I am a "fucking idiot") violated the 1RR rule at the same articles more than 1 time during the last weeks and he even got an incredible patience although he insisted on edit warring after being warned[1]; but his clear disruptive behaviour did not deserve your attention surely because he is usually at your side of the disputes. So it seems you are not really concerned about the disruption at those articles but you are trying to eliminate an user who does not agree with you. Another proof: if you were just concerned about my alleged contentious last edit why did not you revert it or attempted to discuss it at the talk page but you just came first here to the ANI? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If Factchecker violates 1RR and doesn't self-revert, I think he should be blocked. If he gets blocked six times for edit-warring, as you've been, then I think he should be topic-banned. Does that sound fair? MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, I violated 1RR once because I had never heard of 1RR before and didn't know any such restriction was in place; I violated 1RR a second time because I simply forgot it was in place. I am now wary of the existence of such strict measures. In the meantime, I also participated in the discussion and implemented the resulting consensus even though it was contrary to my own feelings on what was appropriate. This last part is a very crucial step that Claudio is missing and I'd suggest that this is the chief reason this discussion was initiated. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No MastCell, as I said, your attempts to ban me are not a fair way to resolve your contents disputes with me. And my last edit was far from become a edit warring, so you even lack of a pretext to try this ban again. It seems you are stalking me. Factckeer I am not missing nothing not even one of your words referring to me, such as "stupid reasoning", "giberish" or "fucking idiot" -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What I said you're missing is, among other things, the need to accept consensus when it is contrary to your own conclusions about what is best. I am aware that you noticed the profanity I directed at you on one occasion, as you've now repeated it in this discussion five separate times, as if to distract from the substance of the complaints about you. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a discussion on whether or not the topic ban should be extended is warranted. The continued and tedentious behavior exhibited in order to try and create this link has gone on long enough. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What "tendentiouslink tendentiously inserted" are you talking about Falcon8765? That Margaret Sanger supported eugenics, coercive sterilization of sick people, ban for sick immigrants based on eugenics grounds is not a "tendentious link tendentiously inserted" but a fact that was even accepted and included into the Margaret Sanger wikipedia-article since long ago and actually not by me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "tedentious link". I said "tedentious behavior". Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

At any rate it is not a link tendentiously inserted but a fact already inserted since long ago into that article and not by me. And actually that link has nothing to do with the current discussion here. But you are another of those users who always came to the ANI looking for a ban against me based on off-topic things. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Stupid question Glancing at ClaudioSantos' edit history, I see a near single-minded obsession with eugenics (and, lets be fair, it is pretty horrifying) and related sanctity of life issues such as euthanasia (again, many people find it pretty horrifying), and a lot of chatter that seems to involve an aggressive attitude and getting into edit wars. What am I missing here that makes a topic ban make sense as opposed to a plain old, and rather long, block?--Tznkai (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So an "obsession with life" is your reason to push a block against me? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to second Tznkai's question. ClaudioSantos has been topic banned (once) and blocked SIX times for tendentious and obsessive POV pushing and shows little promise of reform despite numerous unkept promises. An indefinite block seems reasonable to me. Patience is a virtue, but only up to a certain point. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been topic banned solely 1 time and I have not violated that topic ban ever. Dominus Vobisdu is clearly lying and misleading misled or he just mistyped, but his comment could mislead other users to my detriment. And the reason to open this thread at the ANI was baseless: solely one edit -already reverted and which did not drive to any edit warring- which at any rate also did NOT violate the topic ban. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the phrasing for which you are searching, Claudio, is "Dominus, if I have been topic banned as you say, could you please provide diffs of those bans? Thank you." I am almost certain you were not calling another editor a liar in a thread about how combative your approach has been. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps Dominus mistyped and meant to say "blocked six times" not "banned". This is a common mis-type. KillerChihuahua^?!?[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice] 01:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Sometimes my keyboard freezes up for a moment and ignores input, as it did in this case. I've added the omitted words in bold to my post above, as well as added the word once so that no one can interpret it as meaning that he was topic banned six times. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, then let correct my last comment. Here I also have to add that the user (NotBW) who opened this thread already admitted that the reason he argued to revert my edit was also baseless due my edit was indeed explicity in the source. So his confessed assumption of bad faith ("I do not think you really did read the source") was nothing else than that. And this edit did not violate the topic ban as it was already stablished, because a lot of times it was told that editing eugenics topics does not mean editing euthanasia topics. This thread lacks even of pretexts but not of hostile and sedulous supporters who have called me a "fucking idiot" with "stupid reasoning" writting "gibberish", included some other users bordering the personal attacks referring to my edits with psycho(patho)logisms such as "obsessions", etc. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That may be; its irrelevant to the issue of your behavior. Its clear from your posts here that you have a problematic approach to working with your fellow editors. Regarding Factchecker atyourservice, you keep harping on a past transgression which has been handled and therefore there is no reason I can see to bring it up unless you're trying to refute his statements not by refuting them directly but by the ad hom approach of character assassination; Mastcell, you accuse of stalking you and "looking for excuses to ban you"; Dominus, you accused of lying - and yes, I appreciate you refactoring that statement, but in the future you'd do much better if you think before you post, and refactor before hitting the "submit" button. Meanwhile, you've caused a lot of disruption and don't seem to be at all open to the idea that your approach is causing any problems. I'm leaning strongly towards supporting Mastcell's suggestion we widen the topic ban; my main concern is that we'll have to keep widening it until it encompasses all of Wikipedia if you don't start reconsidering some of the advice you've been getting and taking it to heart. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And at the end of this long and quite not-so-nice discussion, I still have no answer on the question "Did he violate the topic ban". Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry; no, he did not. The topic ban was quite narrow; hence our discussion about whether it should be expanded to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, and Eugenics; I would also add Nazi related topics. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Clear! Thank you for your opinion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The topic ban is explicitly broad, and I quote: "ClaudioSantos is topic banned by the Wikipedia community from Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed". I don't think that Euthanasia sections of any article could be considered outside the scope of that topic ban. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 13:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Eugenics is not euthanasia, no matter how broadly one construes it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. The altered paragraph, however, is focused on euthanasia in eugenics. No matter what the title of the article or the section, he is editing regarding the topic of euthanasia - that's a violation of his topic ban. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 15:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The preceding sentence, which he did not edit, mentions euthanasia. The sentence he edited has no reference to euthanasia at all. I'm willing to call that a non-violation. Right now, I'm more interested in trying to see if he understands why he got that ban, and realizes he's engaging in the same behavior, and looking at increased editing restrictions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I have not edited any euthanasia section of any article. And after my last 1RR block I also have not broken any rule nor engaged in any edit war.

KillerChihuahua, let me ask: so it is fair for all the mentioned users to refer about what they consider my behavior to re-open this ANI-thread but it is a fault of my part to refer to their behavior toward me? and it is fair to reopen this ANI-thread harping things which were already "handled" and which happened weeks and even months ago, but it is a fault of my part to refer to some very rude personal attacks and disruptions continuosly happening (and the last PA took part just 1 day ago) for whereby I think they are stalking me? KillerChihuahua, if that is your concern, certainly I was not the one who opened this ANI-thread to deal with already handled things, I came here to defend myself. So I find this unfair, given the fact that this ANI thread was opened because of one single edit, whereby I have not broken the current topic ban nor I have broken any 1RR rule nor my last edit even became an edit war nor a disruption, so precisely it seems here I am going to be re-judged and re-punished for already handled and past things. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 13:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand why you got the first topic ban? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I do. And currently I am not editing warring nor engaged in any rude discussion against any user. The case with Factchecker is an example: instead of answering his very rude personal attacks, I have invited him to disengage from me and as he did not, then I have reported him to an admin to handle the thing. If this is your concern, let consider that I am not harping in Factcheker-s PAs here but the fact is: 1 day after he was warned because of his rude behavior calling me "dishonest person", then he came here to this ANI calling me again a "dishonest person". Actually I have not mentioned his PA-s here before he came here again to call me again "dishonest". Perhaps I must not ask if some users are stalking me, but the fact is: this is the 3 or even the 4 time the very same users open this ANI-thread using the very same pretext ("by editing eugenics I have broken the euthanasia ban"), and after that pretext is rejected then they bring again already handled and closed cases against me. So, I have to repeat: Indeed I have not edited any euthanasia section of any article, so I have not broken the ban. And after my last 1RR block I also have not broken any rule nor engaged in any edit war.. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just so you know, I was strongly temped to ignore everything you wrote after "I do." I read it, but it was useless and spammy and repetitive and I wish you hadn't wasted the text. Please don't do that again. Second question: WHAT led to your topic ban? Please be brief be concise and stay on topic this time, thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I have already answered: currently I am not editing warring nor engaged in any rude discussion against any user which were the reason for the ban. And yes, I have understood those reasons. Proofs> certainly I have not PA any user although I have received some very provokatives comments. Certainly I have got my last blocks because I broke the 1RR rule as I was not used with that rule but I was being very careful not to engage in edit wars but discussing my edits at the talk pages. And you can check that after the ban most of my edits are at talk pages discussing the changes instead of editing the articles. A -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So short version (which I would have very much appreciated you sticking to) would be "editing warring nor engaged in any rude discussion against any user" - yes? And then you claim you haven't done that. Because accusing other editors of stalking, and lying, and so on, is not being rude??? A simple yes or no will do. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No and yes. I have expressed my concerns and I asked if opening 4 times the very same thread with the very same wrong pretext is not stalking me given the fact that the user who opened this thread was warned by one admin, because the non-involved admin also found in the past that this user was stalking me. If I wrote that some user was lying, it was due the very hard pressure that means to be answering this very same thread to the very same users once again, but I have refactored my comment. And at any rate I also think that it is not fair to let some users to continuously PA me and let other users to re-open this ANI thread using the very same wrong rejected pretext, again and again and again and again, whereby finally it desperates me and I write a wrong word which is then used as an excuse to punish me. I have patiently answered those concerns again and again and again. You can check that I have not written any PA against any user at any of the mentioned ANI threads dealing with the very same thing. So, finally, perhaps deseperated I lost a word ("he is lying") that at least is less rude than some words I have received also here. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

He asked a question. That's not a "wrong pretext" no matter how much you ABF. He got a short clear answer, too, which is more than I'm getting. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

But this same question was already answered 3 times and he was aware> editing eugenics is not breaking the euthanasia topic ban. Why to ask here again? Will any edit, I do at eugenics, trigger this very same thread again and again? Should I keep quite each time it happens? At any rate if that is not a pretext this time I was invited to came here to answer again the same question and I was put again under the same pressure. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph in question did mention euthanasia, and moreover, mentioned it in direct comparison to eugenics and as part of a general eugenics program. Just because I decided to cut some slack and not treat this as a violation does not mean it isn't very, very borderline, and another admin - or even me on another day - might have ruled that it does violate your ban. Every single time someone thinks you might be violating your ban, they can come here and ask. And if they ask 100 times, you should come and respond here, by explaining how your edit did not violate your ban. NOT with what's wrong with the other editor, or who is stalking you, or who is lying, or any other speculations or attacks on other editors. Simply with whether you violated the ban, and why or why not you think that. This is part of being under a topic ban. You are under this "pressure" because your behavior and editing have led to sanctions, in this case a topic ban. It is not the fault of the person asking the question; it is your fault, for your poor editing behavior previously which led to your topic ban. Do you understand? A yes or no will suffice. If the answer is no, then a brief question here about what you do not understand will be answered. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have patiently answered the question, the past 3 times it emerged, without any PA nor even asking if it was stalking. I also rejected to answer a question of some user who openly asked me if I considered euthanasia to be a form of eugenics or viceversa and then he came to the ANI to ask if eugenics could be part of the euthanasia topic ban if I thought that eugenics is euthanasia. I also have been very patience rejecting insults like "fucking idiot", "imbecile", "stupid", "dishonest". If I deserves that sort of pressures at any rate my patience should be considered and not solely two wrong words at this thread because I thought the question was already answered enough times and the criteria was enough clear. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you any new insults to report? If so, provide diffs. Otherwise, your beating of this dead horse is not helpful. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In this same thread Factcheker call me "dishonest" and diqualified my reading and language skills[2], while one day ago he was warned to stop calling me precisely with the same very terms. But given that a ban is being triggered because of my alleged "combative attitude" it should be noticed that you have not mentioned nothing at all about me being really so patience about those rude insults and aswering very patiently 3 threads asking if euthanasia topic ban includes eugenics. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe you mean "In this very thread Factchecker called me "dishonest" and disparaged my reading and language skills. I believe he may have a point; it is clear your English language skills are not quite to the level we expect of editors, if your posts here are any example. I am sorry you find this information painful to read; however your lack of skill at written English is quite plain. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the thing and being unfair. He was warned not to refer again to my language skills for he used that excuse to call me "fucking idiot", "stupid reasoning", "giberish writer" and he abusively and repeatedly edited my user page although he was warned to stop doing so. If a ban against me is now considered because of my past, it is proverbial how these past insults and disruptions are now being forgotten and you simply say: "he has a point".But let aside the language skills, are you legitimating him to call me "dishonest" also?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that your difficulties with English may be contributing to your problems here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Claudio, I only began calling your editing "dishonest" after our most recent discussion which revealed conduct which I consider to be clearly dishonest. To be specific, you deleted an article sentence with the edit summary "that is not siad by the cited sources". When I discovered that it was, in fact, stated verbatim by the cited source on the cited page, I chalked it up to the language barrier, although in retrospect that seems to have been too generous to you, as no failure of reading comprehension by a reader who uses the Latin alphabet could explain a failure to see an exact replica of the article text in the source itself.

The picture got much worse when you revealed your actual motive for removing the material. I quote:

The source does claim that Sanger would not tolerate bigotry in her staff. That phrase is preceded with another phrase written in first person: "...I (the author)..." . For me it was quite evident that the author was presenting her own opinion about the matter, but it was published in wikipedia as a fact. An opinion should not be presented as a matter of facts, while it is not what the source does. If you differ from my comprehension of the matter then you are still not welcomed to (dis)qualify my reading comprehension but it is still an hostile, uncivil and unproductive manner, moreover given your proven hostile and rude personal attacks from you against me during the last months.

Leaving aside the question of whether you were right in claiming this (which I really don't think you were), it became clear at this point that you had misrepresented your edit. To be specific, you were making the edit based on a very thin (and I think, questionable) argument; but instead you pretended that you had a rock-solid justification (because surely, "it's not in the source" is one of the most rock-solid justifications of all for removing article text). I find it impossible to believe that this was not a fully calculated attempt to disguise the nature of an unjustified and very POV-pushing edit. There's just no rational explanation that I can see that would explain why you acted the way you did.

So, that's why I called you dishonest, and you have not even attempted to prove me wrong. Instead, you go on and on about how I'm persecuting you and shouldn't be believed because I cursed at you. This, too, seems a bit dishonest, though not in the unambiguous sense that the other conduct I just described appears to be dishonest. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Factchecker, after you referred to me using expresions such as "fucking idiot", "stupid reasoning", "gibberish" and "someone who does not deserve friendly manners", I have decided that chatting with you would be a waste of time and a occasion for unproductive and uncivil discussions and for more personal attacks against me. Ironically my efforts to disengage from you and to keeep away from uncivil discussions were not seen here but solely my sole rude word asking if I was being "stalked". At any rate, my edit was finally reverted by you and I did not restore it to avoid any edit war, thus another of my efforts to avoid edit wars but also an effort not considered here in favor of me. At any rate I explained to you that I could not find that claim was in the source because for me it seemed a matter of opinion while in the article it was presented as a matter of facts. Perhaps the matter is that I can not understand how can be said that Sanger does not tolerate bigotry with some people while at the same time this Sanger expressively and openly considers this people to be an inferior race. Surely I have a different comprehension on what does mean tolerence. For me just saying and admitting that some people is inferior is a matter of bigotry. That was my "stupid reasoning" which led me to think that it was not a fact but an opinion, while the WP was presenting it as a fact. At any rate, instead of discussing the thing and instead of using the existing means for an eventual content dispute, the thing was bringed immediately here at the ANI. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you really saying that you think "that is not siad by the cited sources" was a clear and honest way of saying that you think the source was stating a matter of opinion which should not be reflected as fact in a Wikipedia article? Do you see how an editor who simply took that edit summary at face value would likely refrain from investigating further—rather than logging in to Google books and reading through pages of some obscure text—whereas if you had raised the "opinion vs. fact" rationale then that would have given other editors a clue that the issue was not quite that cut and dry?

It seems to me that this was either just as dishonest as I think it was, or that the language barrier is a bit steeper than I had thought. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

For me the source does not say that "Sanger does not tolerate bigotry", but for me the source says that "for the author Sanger would not tolerate bigotry". So I summarized: the source does not say that. If it was a mistake at any rate I answered your concern and explained my reasons and I did not restore my edit when you reverted it. Thus another overlooked effort from my part to keep away from unproductive and uncivil discussions and to explain and let correct my edits. Another effort also not considered here in my favor. So unfair. For the rest: you assuming my bad language skills and my defficient moral, is something I still reject once again to discuss due improductive. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved comment, was reply to Factchecker in the Alternate proposal section. As it has ntohing to do with the proposal, I have moved it here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Since the ban I use to explain any of my edits which emerged to be disputed by any user. My blocks have to do with breaking the very strict 1RR rule for I was not used to it (and you also admitted to break the same very rule for the same reason). Despite your rude comments, I have even explained to you my last edit which triggered this ANI thread, and I did not restored it once you have reverted it. And you reverted it concerned not about the grammar but about the reliability of the source. A source that I have taken from the very same article as it was used as a reference for another phrase. But at any rate I have not restored it once you have reverted me and you opened the discussion at the talk page. And, I already said that I take a lot of time studying every day the English and to avoid my complex grammar coming from the less mechanical native language I speak, and I try to improve my expresions and to keep them precise, but I have not to waste my time studying nor discussing nor answering any rude comments. So, these are some proofs that I have shown disposal to discuss my edits and to avoid unporductive uncivil discussion about the users, so I think that extending my ban is unfair. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Do you remember your first reply on me in this discussion? For your information, you have stated there: "I think he is abusing the ANI and stalking me". I call that an, to cite you, "unporductive uncivil discussion about the users"! Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you taken into account the very large amount of times included the last 3 threads asking if I was breaking the euthanasia topic ban when editing eugenics, a lor of thread for which I have answered very patiently to anybody? It is unfair to judge me here because I used here a the word "stalking" because I thought your question was alreay answered before a lot of times. If that was a wrong word at any rate certainly I have shown a lot of disposal to avoid uncivil and unproductive discussions despite of very rude insults against me and I have discussed every edit that emerged to be disputed. My last blocks were because I have broken the very strict 1RR rule for which I was not used. So, things in my favor should be also considered, do not you think so? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have asked a normal question about the article Margaret Sanger. It does not matter that the same question was asked in relation to other articles. But every article is judged on his own merites, so checking on every article is possible. Unfortunately, you reponded by kicking and screaming, sparking an ugly discussion. You could also have waited to see what the answer would be... Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could ask me about the thing instead of coming here to the ANI or you could just warned me about your concern and perhaps I would have reverted myself, or you could advise me to keep quite here at this thread to avoid any misundertanding. Unfortunately you did not. If there are no innocent, at any rate I am not incorrigible but elimination may be. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

grin Up until now you have most words of advice used as toilet paper! Do you really expect me to have hope for an improvement regarding your behaviour in the near future here on Wikipedia? Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not expected from you nothing, not even about my behavior. I have demanded to consider not only proofs against me but also proofs in favor of me. That is something that is claimed to be guaranteed at any modern court, or for example the guarantee that the accuser is not also the judge, but I also realized that those nice procedural legal guarantees are used to be used as toilet paper. If that happens in the courts what do you think you can expect here at this community? But I remmeber that you have strong confidence in the legal guarantees around euthanasia there where it is legal. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Expand ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suggest expanding the topic ban for ClaudioSantos to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Nazi related topics, broadly construed, including all BLPs biographies of notable persons involved (however remotely) in such subjects. This would include editing any BLP where any of these subjects are mentioned anywhere in the article. Editor has combative attitude, a bad case of pointing fingers at others rather than discussing problems with his own behavior. Removing him from these highly charged topics, about which he clearly has strong views, may enable him to learn to approach collaborative editing more civilly and productively. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP, or Biographies in general? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. All biographies relating to the topics, I should think. I welcome any feedback or other ideas. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support with some reservations. I think even with an expanded topic ban we'll be back here again, so I would advocate an indefinite block here. If a topic ban is put in place I think restricting all edits to biographies in his problem areas is warranted. AniMate 16:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  We can always indef if the expanded parameters don't have the desired effect. I have changed the proposed sanctions to cover all biographies in covered topics, not just BLPs. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for user with long term civility problems and an agenda. N^oformation ^Talk 17:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. In line with my comments above. If you're going to topic ban him/her from the only places he/she is interested in writing, why not just block or siteban outright?--Tznkai (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  Removing him from these highly charged topics, about which he clearly has strong views, may enable him to learn to approach collaborative editing more civilly and productively. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Currently it hasn't been mentioned whether this is keeping the current timeline, extending it or making it indefinite. Also have a problem with the Biography wording. With the wording now if he edits ANY politician page whether he is editing the person's view on abortion or not, someone can say he is violating his ban.Marauder40 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment re: canvassing: Just FYI, Claudio has canvassed at least 4 other editors requesting their participation in this discussion, all of whom were apparently chosen on the presumption that they would view him favorably (NYyankees51, Haymaker, Marauder40, Qwyrxian). MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  addendum: he has already been warned and has not canvassed any more since. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  And I have invited also users who support the ban against me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  Not on Wikipedia you haven't. You've only asked those listed by Mastcell. After you received the note about WP:CANVASS, you told the editor who cautioned you that you had "asked by email some usred who are against me and who have asked for ban me"[3] which is conveniently something only you and the recipients can verify, as it is not available for the rest of us to view. I'm left wondering why the difference in venue? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

  How convenient. Please provide proof of that statement, or else explain why you should not be blocked for it. NW (Talk) 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have sent an email to Tznkai, ask him to verify. And I did sent an email also to Marauder, but while Tznkai answered here the ANI supporting the ban against me, Marauder did not commented anything so I also left him a message at his talk page. I also left a message to Qwyrxian an uninvolved admin in the articles here mentioned (Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, eugenics, etc.) but who have a vreal and good understanding to differentiate and reject PAs and insults. He already commented this proposal and it should be noticed that he did not supported nor rejected the ban but mentioned some points about it. Marauder and the other 2 users I left a message were users previously involved in all the content disputes I have been dealing with the topic eugenics including the article Margaret Sanger, so I think they could be interested in this thing. I thought it was not canvassing given that I did invite not only people who could side with me but people uninvolved and people against. At any rate, once I have been warned that it could be cavassing I still did not invite anyone else. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - An outright ban seems unproductive, seeing his prior sockpuppetry. But a wide topic ban seems fair if it includes biographies of everybody actively involved or member of any related movement but excludes national politicians (if not involved/member). Half a year or a year looks a good term. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• I'm one of the canvassed editors. As far as I can recall, my involvement with this crew so far has been the person mentioned above several times as having warned Factchecker for personal attacks. I have no opinion on whether or not this ban is deserved, but I do think that the phrase "however remotely" needs to be removed. "Broadly construed", as already used, is the standard wording, and "however remotely" would render this topic ban into an unintentional trap. That wording would almost guarantee that CS would cross the ban, because someone could say, "Hey, you edited an article of Person X; he used to work for Company X whose ex-CEO once gave a donation to Planned Parenthood,so that's remotely related, so you're in violation of your ban." Also, I'd like clarification on whether or not this ban extends to user space and/or article talk space. My opinion is that article talk space should apply, but not user space; I would like for the user to be able to safely ask someone whether or not a given article falls under the ban, since the limits may be difficult to see. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems too harsh. I might agree with a short (i.e. one month) topic ban to allow for mentorship or adoption, as I proposed below. I think what Claudio needs is a full appreciation of Wikipedia guidelines and rules. As someone who has been down this road before, it is entirely possible for Claudio to reform without drastic measures being taken. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • He is now serving a 3 month topic ban. Why just a month? Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I still like to have an answer on that, Mr. NYyankees! Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • If an editor doesn't have an appreciation of Wikipedia's guidelines after the multiple discussions brought here, a topic ban, and multiple blocks for edit warring; you'll forgive me for being skeptical that they'll have a sudden change of heart. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I am an advocate of second chances, as well as an adopter. I would like for this editor to have the benefit of adoption before we start seriously considering indef banning.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: The expanded ban proposed by KillerChihuahua is the very least that can be done to stop the constant disruption this editor has caused. Personally, I consider it lenient and would prefer an idefinite ban. The editor has a severe case of battleground mentality and there is little, if any, hope that he will improve, as his topic ban, his six blocks for edit warring and his statements here confirm. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose No reason to believe that Wikipedia would benefit from any such major expansion of a topic ban. In fact, the expansion would make this one of the broadest bans in the entire history of Wikipedia entirely. Collect (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

And if I have edited any article related to abortion or nazism it was related to euthaNAZIa or eugenics. For instance, Aktion-T4 nazi euthanasia program and sections related to eugenics roots of Margaret Sanger at Planned Parenthood. All users here demanding a ban for me were very strong opponets to mention the actual links between Margaret Sanger and eugenics and racism but I wonder why they also support to protect from me the articles related to nazism as a whole? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Rephrasing to add time; address concerns - ClaudioSantos is to be topic banned for a period of six months to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Nazi related topics, broadly construed, including all biographies of notable persons involved in such subjects, broadly construed. This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects. - Please comment below; if there are any tweaks or fixes to make please discuss. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  I personally think one year may be a little harsh, unless you do something like one year if he doesn't agree to mentoring, 3 months if he does and abides by his mentors suggestions during that time. As for the biography section, I don't like the wording from this point on "This would include editing any biography where any of these subjects are mentioned anywhere in the article..." I am terrible at legalize editing but can it just be simplified to say something similar to "including portions of any biographies that deal with said subjects." The way he could edit say (just as an example) the Barack Obama page but he can't touch the subjects on abortion, eugenics, etc. contained within and/or add something about that to the page. If he just goes into a page like that an bashes the person or something like that, that can be dealt with separately.Marauder40 (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  I've changed it to "This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects, with the exception of politicians who merely mention their stance on Abortion, but including those who are active in listed causes/fields or are members of related organizations or have worked for same. " - basically using your verbiage, but changing "portion" to "section". Regarding the time, what about adding that he can apply to have the restrictions lifted after 6 months? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  I personally think you can just end it at "This would include editing any section of any biographies that deal with said subjects." The rest of it would be included in that sentence and the sentence before it covers all cases, both the cases of biographies that directly deal directly with the said subjects, and any sections of biographies where the person isn't directly in the "industry" but deals with the subject in some way. As for adding applying after 6 months, technically someone can apply at any time. Not sure adding it will help. Just think 1 year may be a little harsh. In effect this is an escalation from 3 months to 1 year, figuring it would be better to go from 3 months to 6 months for this type of infraction, but violation again would cause indefinite topic ban. Marauder40 (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  Done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: With the updated wording. Arguments that this is too harsh don't take into account the repeated pattern of combative behavior even after six blocks and a topic ban. I highly doubt it improves. The copious fingerpointing and deflection in this thread serves as a good example. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - based on the behavior seen in this AN/I thread, this seems an appropriate action. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support It is clear from this discussion alone that the user needs time to work on collaborative editing skills, and that should be done away from topics which have proved repeatedly contentious in the past. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alternate proposal

• Comment — Again, I'd prefer to abstain from judgment on the actual topic ban, but I think it's important to state the following. My repeated core suggestion to Claudio, which has unfortunately both gone ignored and has provoked hostility in response (which I admit I have subsequently matched), can be stated as follows:

If Claudio finds himself locked in a dispute with another editor, and resolution of the dispute promises to hinge on either of the following:

1. Analysis of English text in a source, or

2. Understanding of WP policy as expressed in written statements of policy,

Claudio should consult with a native or other expert English speaker, and preferably one with very extensive WP experience, before persisting with a disputed edit, or even a drawn-out talk page discussion, which can be equally unproductive given a significant language barrier. If he does not do this, his good but still problematic English language skills will negatively impact both his reading of the source and his understanding of the applicable policy. These two manifestations of the language barrier would seem likely to feed off of each other and multiply the problems that result. The other perceived qualities that have led to this ANI, the topic ban, and other blocks, are a significant enough problem without this complicating factor. And it just seems that the language barrier problem would be the very easiest one to correct—if not in the way I suggest, then in some other way that leaves the door open to a productive editing future.

Barring that, it's not my opinion that editing English WP should be open to any and all. Some baseline language ability, or at least a willingness to work around a very real language barrier, should be required, IMO. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment about Factckeher proposal: Since the ban I use to explain and discuss any of my edits which emerged to be disputed by any user as proposed by Factchecker now, so I am not against doing so. My blocks have to do with breaking the very strict 1RR rule for I was not used to it (and Factcheker self also admitted to break the same very rule for the same reason). For example, despite some rude comments, I have even explained and discussed my last edit which triggered this ANI thread, and I did not restored it once Factcheker have reverted it. And Factchecker reverted it concerned not about the grammar but about the reliability of the source. A source that I have taken from the very same article as it was used as a reference for another phrase. And, I already said that I take a lot of time studying every day the English and to avoid my complex grammar coming from the less mechanical native language I speak, and I try to improve my expresions and to keep them precise, but I have not to waste my time studying nor discussing nor answering any rude comments. Due the ban I strive not to get involved in that sort of discussions despite the commenter deserves an answer about the content despite of the manners. So, these are some proofs showing that I have shown disposal to discuss my edits and to avoid unporductive uncivil discussions about the users, so I think that extending my ban is unnecessary. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet more arguing about language skills and civility. Not helpful.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wow, excellent example of a statement that flies in the face of the 5 pillars and founding principals of WP.Marauder40 (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Have you ever read WP:CIR? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Sorry to offend, Marauder, but how so? You've got me curious. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Many of the best editors of WP may not speak English as a first, second, or even third language. I have been on several pages where someone that obviously had problems with English made an edit to a page that was correct, but may have had grammatical issues with it. I have been in talk page discussion with people where this also happened, including issues where cultural or grammar issues had to be explained. It seems like this pillar is being forgotten "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit...Be open and welcoming, and assume good faith on the part of others.", yes WP:CIR exists, but language problems can be worked with with people that are welcoming, but not by people that are failing to AGF or give second chances, etc.Marauder40 (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC) However, according to WP:COMPETENCE, an editor may be working in good faith, but if their language skills prohibit them from properly contributing then that's simply something we can't deal with. I'm not saying that this is the case here, just putting it out there. Noformation Talk 20:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) It seems some are making more of the language issue then there really is. Instead of taking things to talk pages and discussing it there, things got into a slow moving edit war with multiple people. People (on both sides) seem to be claiming language issues that aren't really there. IMHO, the language difficultly section of WP:CIR refers to people that barely understand English repeatedly inserting horrible English into the actual articles, not people that may have minor interpreting issues or being sloppy on the talk page/edit summaries. Marauder40 (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Marauder, your previous comment is all well and good, but the scenario you envision presupposes an editor who is both able to recognize, and willing to work around, his language limitations. Claudio, on the other hand, reacts with negativity and even hostility at the mere suggestion that he is perhaps not Bill Shakespeare. Further, the existence or non-existence of other editors whose language limitations don't get in the way of their editing is really quite irrelevant. My suggestion offers a perfectly reasonable way that Claudio could work around his language issues and keep them from coloring disputes (at worst) and constantly making extra work for other editors (at best). FWIW, I have yet to see an edit by Claudio that didn't introduce broken English or at least very very bad grammar into an article. If every single edit he makes requires significant-to-massive copyediting, and if he can't understand the sources he is reading, or the policies he's supposed to be observing, it seems the simpler and more practical solution that Claudio himself make the effort to avoid such problems. Finally, this could foster the sort of mentoring relationship that we all need at one point or another. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC) I assume you are exaggerating to make a point here, because I have seen edits he has made that don't have major grammar errors. The edit that brought this thing to ANI is an example. Approach can also help in the situations, instead of wholesale reverts, just correcting the grammar, or saying on the talk page, "Hey, you might want to phrase it this way instead." Don't attack with, "Grammar Nazi" (not an attack, directly from your user page) style attacks. I admit my grammar on talk page stinks, but I try to get it right in actual articles, but realize that sometimes people need to correct me. The example that brought this to ANI is a content dispute, not a grammar problem. Marauder40 (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC) No, I'm not exaggerating, but it's not as if I've looked through his edit history. I'm talking about the edits he's made at articles at times when I was watching them. And actually, the edit that brought this to ANI helps prove my point. The sentence he added was only grammatically correct to the extent it was copy/pasted from the source; he added a single word and a comma which then rendered it in need of copy editing. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I would wholesale revert for grammar. I reverted because he seems to have been lying about the source. And this is something I've brought to his attention before when he claimed something was simply not in the source when it clearly and obviously was right there in the cited source at the cited location. And you're way off-base with the suggestion that I am being a "grammar Nazi", too; we're talking about basic reading comprehension that has a critical impact on the way he reads sources and policies. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC) First off, I got the fact that you are a "grammar Nazi" directly off your user page. I was using the example as an item that doesn't have a MAJOR grammatical error in it. Claiming things like that he is introducing "Broken English" or "very very bad grammar" in every article he edits doesn't hold up here. Like I said the reason for this coming to ANI isn't a grammar issue but a content issue. I personally think the language portion of this ANI request should be a non-issue.Marauder40 (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC) That doesn't mean that my suggestion here is grammar nazi-ish. Indeed, the complaint about introduction of copy-editing workload (and some of it is, indeed, incredibly bad) is at the margin of what I've been talking about. Rather, it's Claudio's understanding of sources, understanding of policies, and the way he then reflects that understanding of the source and states his policy rationales to other. These are at the core of editing even where no content disputes exist, but become almost the only thing that matters when a dispute must be resolved. And I'm not even saying that some kind of sanction needs to be placed; but if anyone but me thinks this is a reasonable idea, I think they might be able to persuade Claudio to seek this sort of constructive advice on his own initiative. I have tried, but failed. That's it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Factchecker you insulting me is far from being productive or an attempt to improve my language skills. I have never rejected to improve my language skills and I take a lot of care when editing an article, but I certainly have rejected your very uncivil manners against me. And due the ban, I have to keep away from unproductive and uncivil discussions such as those you proposed to me. Actually, these my efforts to avoid uncivil and unproductive discussions, have not been considered in favor of me in this ANI thread. Well, at any rate, your very first comment to me at one talk page was expressively saying that people like me should not be allowed to edit at wikipedia. Surely, we have a very different comprehension on what is productive and what is unproductive. Well, I take a lot of time studying every day the English and to avoid my complex grammar coming from my less mechanical native language, and I try to improve my expresions and to keep them precise, but I have not to waste my time studying nor discussing nor answering your very rude comments Factchecker. Above I also explained my last edit reasoning. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Another alternate proposal

Simple: mentorship or adoption for ClaudioSantos. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support This editor should be offered the benefit of mentoring/adoption. In the instance the disruption continues we can always revisit more stringent sanctions.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  Feel free to offer to mentor him. He could use some help. The two are not mutually exclusive. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Plain useless. Subject has rejected all earlier issued advice, al least in deeds. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, now I remember that once after you read my position against this really noxious capitalistic reality, that for me deserves to be helped to die and to be abolished forever and replaced with a real Human Species, unlike me, you were so optimistic on people, you said. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

i hope you don't mind that I skip the gibberish part and reflect on "unlike me, you were so optimistic on people, you said". In a certain way, that is true. I think I have said something like "I trust people until they have proven to be untrustworthy." Let me be clear: I don't trust you and you will not get an invitation for my birthday party. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

when is your birthday? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's nothing to suggest that Claudio is at all interested in mentorship or adoption. It's also worth noting that Yank and Lionel didn't show up here until they were canvassed. PhGustaf (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I also worth noting that NotBW who opened this ANI thread did not show up at Margaret Sanger or to Eugenics at the United States, until I edited there. I do not believe in coincidences, do you PhGustaf? At any rate, actually I do have asked one user to adopt me so I am indeed interested in the adoption. I did not canvass Lionel nor asked him to adopt me, I have never interacted with him. All about an alleged canvass was responded above. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This is precisely the combative behavior we are talking about. Fingerpointing and accusing another editor of waiting in the wings for you to edit so they can report you. A bit silly. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, are you talking about PhGustaf concerns about Lionel showing up here allegedely because I have canvassed him? I have not canvassed Lionel, although I was fingerpointed and accused of that. A bit silly, I do agree. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not when I responded to your comment. Regardless, that's quite enough interaction with you for me. Don't have the patience for the behavior you got brought here for int he first place. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 04:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Very unlikely to have any effect on the combative behaviour that has caused this editor to be topic banned and blocked for edit warring six times. If anyone wants to try it, feel free. But that is no substitute for expanding the topic ban. This user has consumed an incredible amount of time and attention already. I also have concerns about the canvassing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I do believe and practice adoption instead of abortion, even if I have to "waste" my time. But that's me who have nothing at all to lose than chains. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Very much doubt this would do any good, given the lack of behavioral change after previous blocks. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose sadly - won't fix the problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think a mentor will be able to keep him in check. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking for a stritjacket or for haloperidol? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your selections are intriguing but they are not my words. It's exactly this combativeness that makes me think you will not benefit from a mentor. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely you ever have had any concern about undefinition. Well, I was diallecticaly but simply asking you to define your completely undefined suggestion, about the weaponsmeasures to keep people -like me- under control, in check, or even in check-mate. Due, what a matter of coincidences, certainly you know about combativeness. Because you got 6 blocks (like the number of my blocks) and to avoid your last block (up to 3 months, like the length of my current ban) you made a compromise to 1RR for 6 months. Are you then suggesting than instead of a ban expansion, a straitjacket or haloperidol for me, it can be better applied the same compromise you made: 1RR for 6 months? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

1RR for six months sounds like a good proposal. I'll throw up another subheading. Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I had been ignoring this topic, but just noticed some comments (dated today) above by ClaudioSantos, and the attitude is not conducive to collaborative editing or mentoring. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - This seems to be a hardcore POV warrior headed for the exit door to Conservapedia. This seems way past mentorship to my eyes. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

1RR for six months

Santos suggests above that a six-month period of 1RR may work for him. Thoughts? Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Won't work. The issue here is his inability to discuss in a collegial manner without resorting to a variety of accusations. --Blackmane (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the idea behind the 1RR for this editor. If anything he does is reverted, he is not allowed to revert it back, but must gain a consensus. At least, that's my interpretation. Is that in line with your thought Bink? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 12:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the gaining consensus bit which is the issue. From what I've read, ClaudioSantos tends to reduce attempts at discussion to various accusations and rants that don't seem to help discussion. --Blackmane (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The 1RR proposal is intended to stop article space edit warring from Santos, but admittedly will not address his talk page behavior, except for possible talk page reversions. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support I think this is fair. Edit warring seems to be the predominant problem. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • POV-pushing, you mean. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: I highly doubt that this will be effective in addressing the main issue of Claudio's battleground mentality and his hostility towards other editors. Six months of 1RR IN ADDITION TO an extended topic ban may be a good idea, though, as it will force him to gain consensus on less contentious articles. A major problem is that Claudio has not expressed any credible intention of correcting the tendentious behaviour that led to the current situation. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - with the understanding stricter sanctions can be applied should this not work. It is worth at least trying before escalating consequences. Kansan (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It still means that he can go on with his POV-pushing, albeit in a slower pace. It does not solve the problem, but neither does blocking or mentoring him. Long term wide topic ban seems the best option. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Shifty333

Resolved

 – sock drawer slammed shut by MuZemike. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Shifty333 (talk · contribs) is making "original research" moves to pages, which can't be undone without admin action. He's ignoring warnings. Please help! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to get me blocked over a page move? Shifty333 (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That's up to the admins. The specific help I need is for them to fix your screwing around with the renames, since I can't fix it myself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that Shifty has also created a fake logo to back up their page move. The addition of a bunch of periods on the redirect pages seems a deliberate attempt to prevent a page move revert. This is obviously an intentional act of deception, tantamount to vandalism and I wouldn't be opposed to a block until they can promise not to do this anymore.--Atlan (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Shifty has also made a non-consensual move via cut-and-paste of Florida Marlins to Miami Marlins. The article states, with sources, "Marlins will be known as the Miami Marlins starting on November 11, 2011". This has been agreed upon by the page editors as the date to change the name. - BilCat (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Shifty has also moved MetLife Stadium to Meadowlands Stadium (NFL) via the move feature, and then edited the first page, meaning only an admin can revert the move. Again, this is incorrect and nonconsensual. - BilCat (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the Shifty editor won't stop, I must call for a block, after which the admins will need to fix his nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Shifty has been making numerous moves, copy/pastes, and internal content changes (some of which I can revert/redirect, and some of which will require admin attention) in relation to three baseball teams: Miami Marlins in relation to their upcoming change to Florida Marlins, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in relation to their change from their old name of Anaheim Angels, and Tampa Bay Rays in relation their change from their old name of Tampa Bay Devil Rays. The user has change numberous articles and templates to accomplish this. Also, as Bugs has pointed out, Shifty has created similar problems for various major sports venues. Singularity42 (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The sequence of events needs to be (1) block the user; (2) editors repair any text not already fixed; (3) admins need to revert the moves as soon as possible; and (4) admins need to delete the junk-logo uploads at leisure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

okay okay, it was a little prank. im sorry and the pagemoves have been corrected. can you please spare me?? Shifty333 (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for "little pranks", otherwise known as vandalism. Are you willing to give a clear undertaking that you will never indulge in "pranks" again? If not, you are likely to be blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Correct me if I got this wrong but using the word "Shifty" as his moniker has raised my eyebrows and the fact that a supposedly newbie editor with less than 100 edits knows something about Arbcom is raising my eyebrows higher. More mysterious is the way that the account was registered in January of 2010 and yet somehow he has figured out so much of our lingo is now raising my eyebrows to their absolute limit. Again, I hope I got this wrong but "someone" (as in a CU capable Admin, ahem!) please take a look into this supposedly newbie's "undercover mission" or better known as hidden agenda to the layman like us. To which I'm sure that BB would agree 100% with me on the above all. Best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A CU is welcome to have a look, but the behavior itself is sufficient grounds for me to block the account. Wikipedia is not for making pranks. Jehochman ^Talk 12:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There may be socks out there. This user created four new user talk pages within one minute for users that either do not exist or users who were created at the exact same time and have made no contributions: User talk:Subhankar1131, User talk:Waleed24680, User talk:Fakd2120, and User talk:Wheeler333. I've tagged the talk pages for non-existing users for speedy deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin put 2012 Tampa Bay Devil Rays season back to 2012 Tampa Bay Rays season? Shifty appears to have purposely added punctuation to the redirect in order to prevent it from being easily moved back. Singularity42 (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Shifty333 is  Unrelated to Subhankar1131 and Waleed24670, and appears to have no other socks. The other two users do not exist; he was pasting welcomes onto the talk pages of non-existent users. I'm not sure what's going on with this guy, but technical evidence suggests there is no abuse. AGK [•] 12:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, User:Shifty333 is a sock of indefinitely blocked user Don't Feed the Zords (talk · contribs), who has been insistent for a long time on "Devil Rays" despite the name change. –MuZemike 14:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And now the editor is active as Shiffy 333 (talk · contribs), doing pretty much the same thing. Dayewalker (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, User:Shiffy 333 just tried to delete MuZemike's comment. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 15:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI: I have just rollbacked User:Shiffy 333's attempt to refactor and remove the above paragraph by User:MuZemike (diff). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was User:Shiffy 333, with an f. I presume it's a sockpuppet. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

With this diff he tried to implicate MuZemike as the sockpuppeteer... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Also note "Anaheim Angels" on a previous sock. –MuZemike 15:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And User talk:Seufs apparently also. - BilCat (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done blizzocked. –MuZemike 08:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Community ban proposal on User:Don't Feed the Zords

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – User banned by overwhelming consensus

At this time, I would like to propose a formal community ban on Don't Feed the Zords (talk · contribs) due to his nearly 3 years of harassment, vandalism, and trolling. –MuZemike 23:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Agree with the concerns by MuZemike. Although I wasn't involved with this user, he has unfortunately refused to cooperate with the Wikipedia community. With that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I've dealt with him in the past and this is a necessary step, I think. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support – No doubt about it that this user deserves a ban. HurricaneFan25 23:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Enough is enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Necessity is demonstrated just by the behavior here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support They are clearly using advanced knowledge of wiki mechanics to frustrate normal consensus editing, and show no interest in abiding by the standards of the community. Monty₈₄₅ 03:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Doc talk 03:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Nothing but hot air coming out from the account, if they are not here to contribute just do whatever that's neccessary to take them out. As it is, we have enough WP:Drama on Wikipedia already. Nuff said~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly warranted. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support, thanks to the sockfarm Bsadowski1 just found made up entirely of Westboroan propaganda usernames and to his willingness to remove this in hopes it will vanish. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 05:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Power Rangers and Baseball? Sounds familiar.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I just blocked the new socks User:Myuhea and User:Myusase as well. Fram (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC) ...and User:Zertiooi and User:Myufio as well. Fram (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  Apparently, Don't Feed the Zords was using these socks in an attempt to create an arbitration request, hoping that Arbcom would hear his case. However, Arbcom would normally just defer to a community ban discussion such as what we are doing now. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note – Continued taunting on his main talk page here. –MuZemike 11:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I've fixed his vandalism on TB Rays articles MANY times over the years. Just a waste of everybody's time. Zeng8r (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - No brainer. Unrepentant vandal and edit warrior trying to force his preferred versions against consensus (and common sense). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. They're very persistent, they're personally attacking ethnic groups, and they're edit warring. What more can I say? WikiPuppies! (bark) 14:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Obviously disruptive editor is obvious. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support as this person needs to find a place where they can be more constructive.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support As their socks tried to deleted this thread. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User is banned. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further comments

Can we please revoke the talk page access of User:Don't Feed the Zords? This is quite ridiculous. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify on the blatant misrepresentation of that comment, he did not just "mention" the "Devil Rays", but he has moved or tried to move all pages that say "Tampa Bay Rays" to "Tampa Bay Devil Rays" (and he has been repeatedly trying to get the Ken Hoang article deleted, though he hasn't done that as of late). Every time he gets blocked, he spams with multiple impersonation acocunts for the sole purposes of harassment; see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Don't Feed the Zords, which is at 70 and counting. This has been going on for at least 2 years, possibly longer. –MuZemike 21:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

MikeWazowski repeatedly refusing to respond to multiple editors on user or article talk page

On October 4 I stopped by User:MikeWazowski's talk page to thank him for some helpful edits. I saw an unanswered question from the new editor User:Thegracekelly about tags that MikeWazowski had placed and I stopped by that article to see if I could answer it. I found an article talk page full of requests for him to talk [4] with no responses. I saw in the article history that Thegracekelly had removed the tags twice and MikeWazowski had put them back twice.

(The tags were accurate but the new editor did not seem to understand them. I spent some time talking to the new editor on the article talk page and their personal talk page and did my best to help them understand what they needed to do to fix the article. They were under the misimpression that one of the tags on the article they started was accusing them of libel, and didn't really seem to understand any of the tags.)

I left MikeWazowski a note [5] on October 5th saying that I did not think that edit summaries took the place of talk page notes and that I was surprised he had not replied to Thegracekelly on a talk page.

When I started looking more closely at MikeWazowski's talk page I saw other unanswered messages. I also saw an earlier (September 12) request [6] by User:Qwyrxian for him to reply to people on his talk page, including people who asked why article's were tagged for deletion. If I understand MikeWazowski's reponse to Qwyrxian [7] he considers his edit summaries to be replies.

Here, [8], on October 10, he appears to be deleting more unanswered questions.

What do you think should be done? Cloveapple (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

As my mother used to say, what do you think should be done? Although Qwyrxian seems to think this might be reportable to ANI (or some other unspecified forum), in my ignorance, I'm struggling to understand what policy Mike has violated and why his behavior requires administrative intervention. He's already been told that what he's doing is unconstructive and supposedly driving away all of these editors who question his tags. Is he obligated to respond to the questioners? I'm not saying it wouldn't be courteous or constructive to respond, but that's different from it being an obligation.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You might want to consider WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U, Cloveapple. Not responding to communication is actually a problem under a number of policies and guidelines: if I'm not mistaken, WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Editing policy, Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Etiquette, WP:DR and WP:AGF all encourage or require clear communication. We have the right not to talk to others, but we don't have the right not to talk to others with whom we are engaging in active dispute, as Mike was when repeatedly reverting the removal of the disputed tags. That the tags were proper is beside the point; talking is necessary to resolve disputes without edit warring. And I appreciate that you took the time to offer this user some guidance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl is probably correct here. I don't think any admin action should be taken against MikeWazkowski at this time, but there may be a bigger issue here; personally, I'd recommend starting with WQA. In some cases, MikeWazkowski's failure to respond was fine--basically, the issue had been resolved before he got back to WP. In other cases, though, there was serious need for communication. How much a user has to communicate with others depends in part on what they're doing. If they're mainly running around doing gnomish edits, or if they do content work that doesn't seem to conflict with other editors, then they're probably fine being mostly non-communicative. But just by eyeballing his last 500 contributions, it looks like he spends the majority of his time on New Page Patrol, prodding and CSD tagging articles. That type of work on WP is going to require that the editor communicate with others. New editors really don't understand our processes in very many cases, and thus it's legitimate for them to ask "Why did you delete my new article?" even when it's perfectly obvious to us why it doesn't belong on WP. Notability, significance, reliable sourcing...all of this stuff is, really, pretty hard, especially if you haven't done work similar to this before. Anytime an editor tags something for deletion, they should be fully prepared to engage in a conversation with the article creator if needed. Heck, sometimes, I think we should start pre-emptive conversations when we tag or delete articles. If Mike isn't prepared to have these conversations, then it may well be that Mike is engaging in the wrong kind of WP work. WQA might be a good place to discuss the issue, to start.

As a side note, does anyone know if there's a way to track an editors "success rate" at tagging pages for speedy deletion? I've personally already declined 4 of Mike's CSD tags in about 2 months, several of which seemed very obviously not speedyable. I know different people have different standards, but I think if someone is on NPP, they should be at a minimum 90% accurate when they tag something for speedy deletion; if there's a secondary problem of Mike being too aggressive with speedy deletion (or other deletion processes), then that may require more direct admin action. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to Bbb23, yes I think an obligation to respond was involved in some of these situations, but you're right that I didn't make it clear what policies or guidelines were at issue. My apologies for starting with the wrong board. I'll take it to Wikiquette assistance as suggested. Thanks to all three of you for your responses. Cloveapple (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC) I'll wait to see what develops here to see if I need to take any of these issues to WQA. Cloveapple (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the note was placed on MW's talk p., he has in fact responded to two questions, in both cases giving incomplete or erroneous responses. In the first, he explained he deleted something because it was a "copyvio of an Air Force page". He was corrected by another admin, who pointed out to him that that page was US-PD, and restored the article, while explaining some problems about notability. For the second, he was requested to restore a page, also deleted as copyvio, to which the poster claimed copyright. He didn't respond to that point, eor explain how to properly donate material. I responded further, explaining that, but also explaining that the material would inevitably be deleted as G11, highly promotional, advising that it would therefore be useless to give permission for it, and suggesting the customary course of action, which is to wait until someone without COI writes an article. I therefore think the manner of this eds. replies or non-replies is indeed a matter requiring admin attention, because his nominations for deletion do need to be checked very carefully, and appropriate followups made so we can explain things properly to new editors. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

For reference, here's a list of speedy deletion tags by Mike that I've personally declined:

1. Aquila Capital: Tagged A7; however, at the time of tagging, the article asserted that the company was the first to offer several different types of investments, a clear claim of significance. Holy heck, I'm checking the history now: after that, Mike prodded the article (a good choice); someone added more info and de-prodded, then Mike prodded again (explicitly forbidden by WP:Prod).
2. Frank A. James, III : Tagged A7, but the first line states that he is the provost of fairly famous Theological Seminary, a clear claim of importance.
3. Sound In The Signals Magazine: Tagged A7. But it's a magazine, which doesn't fall under A7. I actually prodded it (after I searched for and couldn't find any references to establish notability) and it was deleted 7 days later.
4. DAR motion pictures: Tagged A7. It's a motion picture company which released a number of full length motion pictures in India, several of which already had articles at the time. That's practically a claim of notability, much less the trivial bar of significance. After telling Mike about this one, this was when I told Mike that I was concerned about the fact that he never seems to respond to the concerns of other editors.
5. Jonathan D. George: Tagged G12. This is the one DGG mentioned, that isn't a copyright violation because it was a copy of a US government website.

And that's only the ones I declined; on Mike's talk page (and in the history), there are other examples. This, of course, is only half of the issue, with the other problem being what we've already pointed out: if you want to be on NPP, you have to be willing and able to answer questions (civilly) that are addressed by good faith contributors, even in cases where it's obvious by our rules that the articles need to be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Insulting an entire country

No. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is it okay for a wiki user to insult an entire country?111.118.189.200 (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC) No. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC) There are two things I can't stand: people who insult entire countries... and the Dutch. MastCell Talk 22:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC) "All right, we'll give some land to the n*gg*rs and the ch*nks. But we don't want the Irish!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Gentlemen, gentlemen. Enough of this. How about taking up the tax? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC) I object your honor. This trial is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. I move for a mistrial. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Somewhere in the Great Beyond, Norman Corwin and Groucho Marx are reading this...and cringing. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC) You can't take up the carpet until you take up the tacks. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC) (sure, I'm a Marxist: Harpoist-Grouchoist-Chicoist-Karlist)) The correct answer is it depends on the country. After all, in some countries, an insult could result in your execution. You may now go back to your regularly scheduled comedy hour.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC) I think it depends on the context. If you're mouthing off an incredibly offensive slur about the people (like if someone called Serbia is a country of genocidal maniacs - not saying they are, just a common example) then probably not. If you're just repeating what a reliable source says about the country then that is what you're supposed to do (so long as it is relevant). Like if someone says that the current actions of Turkey are very belligerent and they are repeating what was put forward by the author in the RS. There's also a lot of things patriotic people might have a problem with that could be truthful. It could be that someone says the Islamic Republic of Iran is a poor example of a republican government for instance or some things about Israel I would disagree with. Oh, and some Americans of course could get offended by all manner of things. So yeah, depends on the context. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13 Tishrei 5772 00:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC) So what's the page in question? Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC) This one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC) I have never insulted a single Randomite, let alone the entire country (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Then you're a far better man than I... VanIsaacWScontribs 12:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Just one country? Wowbagger, the Infinitely Prolonged insulted every living being in the universe - in alphabetical order. You must try harder Arjayay (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Unlike Wowbagger, I am either quite serene with my condition, like other immortals born that way, or I am not, in fact, an immortal. As such, I lack ability or motive to target the whole of the universe. VanIsaacWScontribs 18:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Back to serious ... if the original poster would like to expand on their question, using diffs where possible, then we'll be able to determine if an incident has taken place that needs administrator attention. Until then, knobs like me will continue to make silly comments ad nauseum (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann inappropriately "refactoring" others' comments

• Scheinwerfermann (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Scheinwerfermann apparently needs a reminder from an administrator that editing others' comments (including changing the threading and indentation) in ways which modify the meaning or to what or to whom the OP was replying to is not acceptable. After he modified my comment at Talk:AC power plugs and sockets#Overuse of non-standard (Type A, B, C etc) arbitrary designations not once but twice, [9] [10] rather than get into a WP:LAME battle over it, I finally struck my comments and left him a note on his talk page. His reply? "Unga bunga bunga!" while reverting my note on his talk page [11] as well as an attempt to downplay his "refactoring" [12] (while making a veiled personal attack towards me).

I was absolutely not agreeing with Scheinwerfermann's berating of another editor: "Yes, yes, we know you're still waiting for Wikipedia policy to fall in line with your opinions and preferences [...]" [13], but Scheinwerfermann's modifications to my comment make it look as though I was and further "refactoring" by Scheinwerfermann [14] [15] then had DMahalko's reply [16] to Scheinwerfermann's berating looking as a reply to my comment...

The WP:TPNO section of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines states: "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context." and WP:REFACTOR states: "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Given this problematic "refactoring", someone should probably have a look though the edit history of Talk:AC power plugs and sockets and Scheinwerfermann's contribution history to see if such "refactoring" has been a common occurrence. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've left a warning. I'll follow up if necessary.—Kww(talk) 11:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice the user has a big "retired" notice on his talk page, and reverts every attempt to make contact with him - keeping said "retired" notice pristine. Yet his contributions show clearly he is both a) not retired and b) not always inclined to behave in a particularly collegiate manner to his fellow users. I suspect you may want to keep an eye on him, and unless his behaviour changes, he'll need you to follow up fairly soon. fish&karate 14:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

His talk page looks to have been tagged that way since September 20, 2009 [17] although as you pointed out, he certainly didn't retire. [18] I did find this edit [19] a little puzzling though. Removing stuff from his talk page unanswered appears to be his regular MO, even with this BLP warning [20] from March 2010. I began to wonder today if maybe his account had been hijacked, however despite a few gaps in regular editing, [21] his contribution history and his pattern of editing (and unfortunately how he interacts with others) appears to be the same now as it was in 2009 before he posted the "retired" notice. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Trongphu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Following an AfD which resulted in the deletion of Minh Nguyen (Wikipedian), Trongphu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who I blocked for causing disruption at the AfD, brought the page to deletion review here, where the deletion was unanimously endorsed. He's now added the entire article to Vietnamese Wikipedia. I reverted, and Trongphu reverted back against consensus at the AfD and deletion review. I am proposing a block for this user and a third-party review. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Watchlisted the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Warning given. Since I actually suggested a redirect to this article (but the result was delete), I think I am uninvolved enough to block if the user continues to add material against community consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

!voted the same, and of the same mind. He's already ranting on the article's talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is nonsense. He keeps assuming he is right and refused to discussion here Talk:Vietnamese Wikipedia. This sysop, Eagle, here has been having problem with me ever since i argue with him a lot. So he blocked me insulting but i didn't agree with it at all anyway let just assume that is reasonable to block me. He even blocked my Talk page which i think is my privately own property because he didn't like what i said in my talk page, this is called dictator. I think if i got blocked from editing from Wikipedia i should at least freely edit my talk page since it doesn't affect anyone, it's mine. It's other people choice to participate in my talk page if they would choose too. I think this sysop is strongly abuse his power toward who he hates.Trongphu (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And about the article the consensus is obviously merge. There are 7 keep, 3 merge, 14 delete, 9 redirects. Some of the redirect votes clearly said redirect or merge all relevant info into Vietnamese Wikipedia article. So they all added up to become majority that it should be at least has its place in Vietnamese Wikipedia article if not its own article.Trongphu (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Majority is not consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The AfD was closed with consensus to delete. The DRV snow closed affirming that decision. Your talk page is not your "privately owned property", especially when you are blocked (which you were at the time). Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was delete. The result of the DRV was endorse. Like it or not (and, as I say, I suggested a redirect myself), this material cannot be re-added to the article. You can argue as much as you wish, but that is the final result. Please don't get yourself blocked again by inserting the material again. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yea of course majority is not consensus. I think most people agree that it should be merge and yea the keep votes should be count as merge votes too since keep vote is stronger kind of support than merge. And some redirect votes expressed the same thing. I still don't get how the consensus is delete if it's not there are the most delete votes. After all the consensus of the community is obviously merge. Let clear this up the result is not about merging it's about the article being delete and yet it has been deleted i have no problem with that. But this is merging.Trongphu (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The consensus of the community was to endorse the original delete decision. This was quite clear from the DRV result. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the result is very much about merging. Merging was an option. It was not selected. Deletion was selected instead. This has been explained to you multiple times. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You do not own your talk page and several other admins were ready to block you as well. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yea i think i own my talk page and even if i don't then i think i have a right to do whatever i want as long as it doesn't effect anyone it's not like i'm forcing them to discuss in my talk page. So if i want to choose to blow up my house can you stop me? I don't think anyone can.(this is just an example)Trongphu (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No you don't. Read the policy I just linked to. You have no rights on this website, only privileges. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite, I've requested a block per WP:CIR and WP:IDHT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Which has now been enacted. Can't say I disagree with it. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I tagged the Vietnamese Wikipedia article with a {{copyvio-revdel}}, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. Flatscan (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Backlog Alert

Resolved

 – Only two open requests at this time, and both of those are pending. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a pretty good backlog at Requests for page protection. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I took care of some of the backlog but I'm not generally an RFPP admin so I can't say I did it with any competence.--v/r - TP 13:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You're an admin, competence is not required. NW (Talk) 15:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Best response ever. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Block review for Baseball Bugs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Issue is resolved, the horse has been beaten to death, we get the point. Alexandria (Ni!) 21:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to respectfully request a review of the block given for personal attacks allegedly made by Baseball Bugs as possibly being too harsh and not sure that I see where he was warned. It is clearly a block that doesn't sit well as given by comments posted to his talk page. It stems from a dispute on the Reference Desk talk page (that really shouldn't be there in the first place as it looks like something for WQA or Dispute Resolution).

I fully respect the blocking admin but I don't believe that the block is warranted.

I will notify the involved parties.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock. The blocking admin gave a warning to Bugs about a comment a week after the comment was made. Then, when he didn't like Bugs' response (which was benign IMHO), he blocked. Admins should not be re-starting fires that have long since gone out. Wknight94 ^talk 20:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock - unnecessarily punitive. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock That's a punitive block if I ever saw one. The Bushranger also makes some good comments on Baseball Bugs' talk page. I've never been a fan of Baseball Bugs, but this block isnt right.--v/r - TP 20:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support for block. 24 hours is pretty a short block, rarely an excessive amount of time for an established user who crosses a line after being warned (and yes, Bugs was clearly warned on his talk by Tenofalltrades). The sense of "boyzone" that pervades some parts of Wikipedia is problematic, and it's simply never going to be appropriate to mock or invalidate another user's gender (and/or gender identity). Bugs was warned that his comment was across the line, and went ahead and, rather than backing off, "clarified" the joke. That's not good, and I can see how it might feel necessary to draw line in the sand before anyone got the impression that sexual jokes were ok (I know of at least one other, unrelated, case that happened recently where sexual jokes were made and the offender didn't seem to understand the problem). That said, however, Bugs's comments weren't particularly egregious, and might not even read as problematic to users who aren't already sensitised to gender-related issues. This isn't a "omg ABSOLUTELY" sort of block, and if Bugs shows some indication that he understands that fighty gender jokes aren't a great idea, I think that the issue can be comfortably concluded with an unblock. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's unnecessarily PC. The user, if I understand correctly, has not identified their gender. A comment was made that they were female. Bugs said they were not based on their comments. I do not see how the first comment that they are female is any different than Bugs assertion they are not female. Further, that the incident happened a week ago it cannot be a preventative block in my opinion.--v/r - TP 20:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, this may turn out to be a "sensitised to gender issues"/"not sensitised to gender issues" divide, in which case I'll probably show up to be the minority here, and the community is quite capable of overruling me if so. But I do want to point out that though the initial incident happened a week ago, the warning and subsequent reiteration of the (bad) joke happened today, which would tend to indicate that, warned or not, Bugs did not grok that his behavior could be viewed as problematic. That would make blocking in response to apparent recidivism less clearly punitive. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock And note that the blocking admin is well-advised not to seek any retribution in any venue. The block was absolutely arbitrary and punitive. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. A very mild joke, and a week later?!? --GRuban (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock - "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." GiantSnowman 20:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock - If food is stale you do not eat it you throw it away; if a comment is stale, the same rule applies. No need to make Hasenpfeffer out of the guy. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 13 Tishrei 5772 20:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• unblock wikipedia, pull up your big redacted possible offensive term *alt wording*/underwear and move on. this block madness is taking up apx 33% of all keystrokes on wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock - That's quite a stretch to call the series of comments a sexist attack. Toddst1 (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. I don't even see anything worth warning that strongly about, to be honest. I don't see that the joke (and I don't even see how it's a joke) was complained about except by the blocking admin (who is not the person it was "directed at", in which case I would take the complaint more seriously), and the response to the complaint was certainly not worth blocking over. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Would say unblock save that Bugs has made it clear that he's not asking for unblocking. FWIW I'm no fan of Bugs' sometimes edgy approach, but would never have made this block myself and don't think it was well-judged. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• This is clearly a punitive block and should be reversed whether Bugs asks for it or not to uphold our basic principles when it comes to blocking. Like Toddst1 I also fail to see this as a clear sexist attack.Griswaldo (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock - I'm not an admin, but this appears to be punitive. I would probably not have made such a comment, but if I did, I would not have expected a block to come of it. Especially not after a week had passed, and especially not based on such a mild clarification posted on my talk page. BB didn't repeat the behavior, and so didn't violate the warning. What disruption in this 24 period are we trying to prevent, and how is it fair to block him for such an incident when he hasn't even repeated the supposedly problematic behavior? Blocks aren't intended to be just handed out like this, for mild disagreements...   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. Per the above, the comment was a week stale, and not blockworthy. I appreciate that Bugs has not requested unblock, but the block is here for review anyway - so I'd recommend unblocking. If I knew it would not further the drama, I would have undone the block myself citing this discussion as consensus; rather, it would be better for the blocking admin to reverse the block and have done with it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. Stale comment + squawking about sexism + understandably annoyed and sarcastic response ≠ reasonable grounds for a block. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've unblocked Bugs, given there is no consensus for this block. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)(edit conflict)Correct me if I've got this wrong... So, what I'm seeing is that Baseball bugs was unsure about the gender of a user who does not state in English her gender on the userpage, and guessed (rather reasonably) that the user is male. When someone else stated the user's gender, Bugs said "That clarifies it." A week later, that statement was taken by the blocking admin as a personal attack. When Bugs gives a light-hearted defense of the perfectly understandable gender confusion, he is blocked. I don't know everything about blocking policy, but I was under the impression that that sort of behavior was not blockable, or even warning worthy. Is there a general "don't piss off the admins, even if it's not your fault" rule? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. I know it's been done now, but wow, this may be the stupidest, most ridiculous block I've seen in a long time, and the way Ten went about doing it makes it even worse. Deserves a trout at minimum. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. I too am late for the party, so I can only express my happiness that there is a solid consensus against that ludicrous block. Favonian (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)(After-the-fact non-admin comment) I think it can be agreed that Bugs has a somewhat twisted sense of humor. I do too, but I also try to keep it in check, with varying degrees of success. Still, sometimes attempts at humor fail miserably, and are taken in a spirit completely opposite that which was originally intended, resulting in being hoisted on one's own petard. With all that said, I'll offer my thanks to Gwen Gale for lifting what, IMO, was pretty obviously a punitive block. Yes, Bugs can be abrasive, but I also think he (I'm making a presumption on gender here) has a knack for seeing through a great deal of bovine excrement and spotting the core of a given issue, with more successes than failures. That's as far as I go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A passing note from the blocking admin. Obviously the ship has sailed and there's no benefit to be gained from me arguing my case now, but I do wish that the community had waited a little while for any comments from administrators who have experience at the Reference Desk and who are familiar with Bugs' history there—or for input from me. Examining this block as if it were for an isolated incident without context leads to the questionable conclusion that we have achieved here; were this Bugs' only questionable edit I would not have blocked him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You knew it was a controversial block and you should have stayed around to defend it or not made it - if you had have done that you could have been the correct person and reverted it yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(I don't care or pretend to understand the block or unblock situation), but are you saying that blocking administrators can't even leave their keyboard for one hour? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In this case - Thats right - that admin knew it was controversial and blocked a user that is a long term contributor and with a clean block record for the last four years - this block was snow reverted. That admin should block himself for the same period of time as his bad block. Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The "leaving the building defense" - right after making a block which anyone would recognize as being controversial at best - does not hold water. Off2riorob is being conservative. A specific apology is called for when the opinions of others are this unanimous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

8 hours = "right after making a block" ... I guess I live a hectic life. Never mind then. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like TOAT spent three hours at the keyboard, and discussed the block with anyone who asked. That it was overturned after an incomplete filing here is a good indication of its inappropriateness.   Will Beback  talk  22:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on its appropriateness. As far as I'm concerned regular content editors should only be blocked if they are actually harming article space, and I disagree with a majority of blocks directed towards regular content editors, including blocks that have been proposed by a large portion of admins commenting here. I am commenting on "you should have stayed around to defend it ". How long, exactly, should TenOfAllTrades have stayed around to defend it? ---Sluzzelin talk 22:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Until he overturned it and blocked himself for the same period. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the laughs. ANI strikes again. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he should own his bad block in his own contribution history. Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd quite go that far, but there should certainly be an application of seafood. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to the passing note, I've conversed with Baseball Bugs before and he is a fine user, and one to admit when he is wrong. He was not in the wrong here. The block was unjustified and I am glad consensus is to overturn it. CycloneGU (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think "That clarifies it."[22] is an ironic statement. It is ironic in that it doesn't clarify it.

I think the theme of irony is continued in the statement, "I don't actually believe Medeis is female, because women don't act like that"[23] because clearly there isn't a simple way to identify how women "act".

I would chalk this up as a misunderstanding. Bus stop (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is looking like a "please move on, nothing to see here" discussion. Alexandria's marked it as resolved, I propose marking it as "archived" in 10 minutes from now ("now" being 23:33 UTC) unless anyone has a pressing reason not to do so. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just analyzing what went wrong. I hope that isn't the reason for a hasty archiving. I think it is an interesting issue because of the subtlty and the simplicity of the factors involved. It also involves one of the simplest and most basic issues in the "political correctness" area—that between men and women. Bus stop (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I won't tag it as archived. Seems to me though that the original issue regarding BB's being blocked has been snow closed, and wider issues of questions about men, women, Mars, Venus, misunderstandings and jokes (misunderstood or not) aren't appropriate here. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We need to wait for the analysis by Wikipedia Review. Count Iblis (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it has to be done...

That is all. Night Ranger (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:TenOfAllTrades has got only thirty edits (those thirty look minor with no content additions) to article space in the last six months - users that are not actively contributing have got no reason or right to restrict active contributors, and if they do and they are snow reverted they should realize they are out of the zone and not use their tools for any controversial action again. Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you, all, for your support and kind words. Being forced to vacate for 24 hours was not entirely a bad thing. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not know what if anything to do

Resolved

 – Hey dawg, I heard you like reverts, so I put a revert in your revert so you could...OK, I'm done here, and so are we. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit by User:Kangaroopower which looked (to me) clearly a vandalism edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charleston_Chew&diff=prev&oldid=454969200

I went to the talk page to post a warning note to this editor but I did not do so as I could see no pattern of vandalism on their contribution page.

Please will someone with more experience take a look? (I placed the ANI-notice on the talk page.) Wanderer57 (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be an accidental revert of a revert. No action needed. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw the part that is was sold and I though it said 2003 and as such reverted it. My apologies, --Kangaroopowah 01:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Competence?

Jeremyawesome (talk · contribs). This user has been around since February 2010 and shown increasing signs of incompetence. Over time, this has included:

• Erroneous information on labels' artist rosters
• Several unsourced images, even after warning (e.g. File:2010 Elizabeth Hendrickson.jpg)
• Good faith but redundant article creation of Nashville divisions of major labels (e.g. Virgin Records Nashville) which were borderline A10 candidates and redirected
• Unsourced addition to discographies
• Attempt to add a copyrighted image to Kellie Pickler
• Repeated addition of television station logos despite multiple warnings
• Blatant personal opinion
• Adding obviously fake song titles to Danny Gokey, then changing them (by the by, should that edit be suppressed?)
• Creation of malformatted articles that are entirely in bold, contain typos, etc. (e.g. most of the X Music Nashville articles) or contain no text at all (e.g. Bigger Picture Music Group)

After a final warning for the Gokey edits, it somehow took this user a whopping 8 edits to properly add a logo to WTHI-TV before they realized what they were doing wrong.

One by one, the edits aren't overly problematic except maybe for the Danny Gokey one, but there's just such an awful signal to noise ratio. I gave a 4im-level warning after the Montgomery Gentry edit. That edit in particular suggests that maybe this user isn't interested in improving the wiki. The only thing I've seen them do that was salvageable was the Bigger Picture Music Group article.

tl;dr: I call WP:COMPETENCE. If you've been here over a year and can't figure out simple things like how to add an image, how to categorize a page, how to create a new page with actual content, then you shouldn't be here period. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The user in question has been around for a year and a half, has over 800 edit but zero edits to any talk spaces. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The user's talk page is stacked with warnings and deletion notices. The user should either be blocked or else agree to mentorship. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Textbook WP:COMPETENCE case here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Block. Incompetence mixed with malice is not mentorable. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Email harassment?

Resolved

 – Block modified by Alison. (non administrator close) WikiPuppies! (bark) 05:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to go with this, but I've just received a harassing email from

- a user that has been blocked. I guess it's still possible for them to log in and email me? Any ideas? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Looked like Brucejenner to me; If you see him again, note it in your AIV report so admins will e-mail block on sight. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It may be Brucejenner, but the recently banned Don't Feed the Zords (talk · contribs) has socks with names very similar to this: just switch "God" for Buddha, Christ, Yahweh, etc. and you have the exact same "Condemns Homosexuality". Doc talk 21:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What did I see recently? Something about "460 species practice homosexuality - only 1 practices homophobia" ... clearly, God (as the maker of all species) does not condemn homosexuality :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As a note, it's possible that particular sockfarm wasn't Zord's; I tagged the "condemns" farm (which are absolutely socks, regardless of whose) as DFTZ's based on their all being blocked at the same time as some that were definitly his. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Running into walls

Recently, User:Ihutchesson and m myself were blocked by Toddst1 for edit-warring in the Haven (TV series) article. After our unblock, Ihutchesson immediately returned to the article and began adding material without discussion into Haven articles. As per the terms of my unblock request (essentially, not to edit war in the article), I've sat by in increasing frustration while Ihutchesson does whatever he damn well feels like, taking bad faith cheap shots in almost every post he makes in article discussion. He has reverted improvements I've discussed within article talk twice (1, 2), and argued tooth and nail against anything I propose. I get that its a collaborative encyclopedia; I don't think ihutchesson does. I am fairly certain he is at best confused by our consensus policy, specifically the part about WP:TALKDONTREVERT. I am also concerned about some rather obvious WP:OWN issues on his part. I mean, he reverts only my edits, while encouraging others to make the same edits instead?

I've tried to bring up the problem with the blocking admin twice (02 October and again on 08 October), but Toddst1 blew off the first request for help and archiving the secondrequest for assistance, and threatening to block us again. Why he'd threaten me with a block, I am unsure, as I know I have been playing by the rules. I came to him for help, and he apparently couldn't seem to be bothered to actually help. I came here because I need to know how to proceed.

I realize that I am no picnic once someone gets my Irish up, but this is screwy. The other guy is doing precisely the sort of thing that got him (and I) blocked previously, and I cannot get the admin who supposedly knows the situation to act. I am unsure how to proceed, except to call it a day and simply walk away from all of the Haven articles. A shame, but my time is valuable; I won't spend it trying to edit collaboratively with someone who won't even make a token effort to do so, or an admin who can't even grasp his job well enough to know that its about more than blocking and unblocking.

Maybe a topic ban is in order for Ihutchesson; it would give other editors the chance to work the articles without fear of getting reverted all the time. I'd suggest mentoring, but I am not sure how open the user is to that, and it wouldn't protect the articles in the interim. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As Toddst1 noted, neither of you have clean hands in this situation, and neither of you are contributing to a positive solution overall. Acting as though your hands are essentially spotless is, well, surprising. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I never suggested they were spotless; it was why I was blocked before. Since then, I have worked pretty hard to keep them clean by working diligently on the talk page with the other user, who has taken cheap shots at me on the talk page and reverted me at almost every opportunity within the article (I've made a total of three edits to the article over the last week - Ihutchesson reverted two of them). I am specifically stating that Ihutchesson is doing precisely what he was blocked for doing earlier. He is demonstrating OWN'ish behavior and seems completely unwilling to work towards a consensus. I may have not been blameless in the beginning, but I certainly haven't asked for this guy to continue being very unpleasant and unwilling to find (ad follow) consensus. If you need examples of this unpleasantness, I can cite them - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Some diffs would be helpful. Post-block only, please. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 12:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack and I have a history of not particularly caring for one another, so feel free to take my comments with a grain of salt, though I wouldn't be saying anything here if I didn't believe I was being neutral. This dispute has been vaguely circling in and out of my consciousness for a while now. Initially, Jack and Ihutchesson were pretty clearly edit warring while also disagreeing on the article talk. Both were blocked for this, and since his unblock, it appears that Jack has taken to heart the idea that the article itself is no place to work out editor disputes. In reading the article history and the talk, I mostly see Jack trying to find new areas of the article not under dispute, so he can edit those constructively, and I see Ihutchesson promptly reverting most of those and rendering them disputed and untouchable. I see both users being tendentious on the article talk page, each quoting policy and interpretation at the other to support why they are clearly in the right. In the most recent case, Jack brings up an issue on the talk page, discussion ensues, and he makes what he perceives to be a BOLD change to the article. He is reverted, they go back to the talk page, and paragraphs of argument ensue in which they each maintain that the other is edit-warring and not reading policy/guidelines.

The bottom line here, to my eyes, is that Jack and Ihutchesson really, really don't like each other's style and appear to be unable to work collaboratively under the current status quo. I don't think an edit-warring block for Ihutchesson (even if warranted, which is a bit iffy and would depend on how one views the history), is going to do anything but postpone the problem of the two editors butting heads. My initial thought was that instead, a 1RR for each of them could work here, but Jack appears to have essentially put himself under 0RR already (which means Ihutchesson is effectively already on 1RR), and the fighting continues. That leaves some less comfortable options to choose from:

1. The best initial option, to my mind, is seeing if either editor (or both) is willing to just stop GAFing and walk away, for the sake of everyone's sanity.
2. If that's not possible, let's take a step up from the one-sided de-facto 0RR and make it two-sided and official: 0RR or 1RR. The reverts seem to be pretty heavily focused on a per-editor basis, which means we may not need an article-level XRR so much as an editor-level one. How about restricting Jack from reverting any Ihutchesson edit, and vice versa, while leaving them free to engage with other edits as they see fit? This would have the benefit of keeping the article itself more stable, but would do little for the talk page, and could be fairly easily gamed if either editor had friends who also edit the article. Article-wide 1RR or 0RR would have to come into play if such gaming happens.
3. If a remedy like that doesn't work, the only other option would seem to a topic ban from Haven (TV series) for both editors. This isn't ideal, since both seem to truly intend to improve the article, but the fightiness is going to have to stop, somehow.

Have I missed any other options? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What about an interaction ban? Would that resolve this? WikiPuppies! (bark) 14:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. An interaction ban is also a possibility, but imposing an interaction ban would call for a little fancy footwork about what that would mean for who gets "custody" of the article - if they can't interact, they can't discuss article changes, which could make article editing difficult (or maybe not, depending on whether they can simply steer clear of one another's edits while still both editing the article). If the Haven article is the only locus of dispute, it might be neater to topic-ban both users from the article than interaction-ban them from each other - but I'm open to hearing other people's opinions on this matter, because I'm certainly no expert on the relative cleanliness of topic bans vs interaction bans. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Would a full protection work? Or what about dispute resolution? WikiPuppies! (bark) 14:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that this situation requires admin action or topic/interaction bans. Perhaps Jack just needs a refresher course on the various forms of dispute resolution that are available to him. Is the content argument only between you and Ihutchesson, not involving any other editors? Try getting a third opinion to settle the issue. More than 2 editors involved? Try starting a request for comments on the talk page to discuss the issue and come to a consensus. If things really get hairy, it might be worth considering dispute resolution. If you can point to a recent discussion with a clear consensus, and Ihutchesson is editing in contravention of that clear consensus, then you will get a lot more support (and if that's already the case, please post some diffs here which show both the discussion and the contravening edits). Until then, it's just one editor's opinion versus the other's. —SW— ^speak 15:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note: These two disputants have been to DRN and WP:AN3already and at that point it seems like they were moving forward at that point. I agree with JS that the discussion space for this article has gotten to the point of a battleground where JS removes xem from a point of contention and Ihutchesson creates new disputed areas so there is no space in the article to collaborate on the content. Hasteur (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A RfC was attempted here regarding the initial issue (that of an over-abundance of references where less might have sufficed). Four editors (myself, ThuranX (2), Huntster (3), Noleander (4) and most recently, SMcCandlish ([24], [25])) thought more references pointing to the same source were trivia overload and being given undo weight in the article. Ihutchesson and one other editor thought it was fine. Ihutchesson calle d this assessment "trumped up" and a "misrepresentation". He ignored the consensus and began adding more citations (often doubling them and again ignoring calls to stop and focus on the actual matter of inclusion).

Additionally, After the most recent interaction, Ihutchesson sought out Toddst1 for input, and was advised to seek DR - one I had already suggested as well. Ihutchesson's next ten edits in the talk page called me "disruptive", a "roving sheriff" and suggesting I've 'changed my wiki behavior' (whatever that means) and that one other editor "gave consent to his edits" - this despite blowing off four other editors regarding a prior issue. These don't seem to be Dispute Resolution when you tell the other person to make my proposals with "savior faire", later changing it to "finesse".

My perception is that Ihutchesson - due to the number of articles that he's created for the Haven series - feels a bit of OWNership and has a specific vision of them that - because he isn't as practiced at our policies and guidelines - he takes special offense when someone alters that vision in favor of our rules. I like that he is productive; that's only good for the encyclopedia. What I dislike is his snarky behavior, prickliness and OWN-ish tendencies. I hate that I ended up with a block for getting pulled into an edit war with him over what could have easily been settled in talk.

I don't think a block would help either. I think a bilateral topic ban (all Haven related articles) for 60 days would clear the air and allow other editors to come forth and edit the article in a more sane environment. If, after those 60 days, the problem re-emerges with Ihutchesson, we can take the sensible next step. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider a slightly less restrictive restriction, like Fluffernutter's suggestion #2 above where neither of you are allowed to revert each other's edits? —SW— ^babble 16:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that doesn't work, as I haven't reverted any of his edits, which has allowed the article to expand the way Ihutchesson wishes it to. That would mean that I cannot make any substantive edits remove what I (and others) consider to be crufty trivia.

For Fluffernutter's #2 suggestion to work, we should go back to this edit, where SMcCandlish last edited before all the extra stuff got stuffed in. That's the version that should pretty much be there in the first place, and allows a good starting point to allow other editors sway in the article. Granted, this removes mostly Ihutchesson's edits, but he was editing essentially with impunity, where none of his edits were challenged. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My #2 suggestion would make the can't-revert-each-other mutual. The reason Ihutchesson's version dominates right now is because though you haven't reverted him, he has reverted you. If we make it so that neither of of you can revert the other, you'd be back on even ground with regard to control over article content. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I am okay with not reverting each other, Fluffernutter. My problem is that the article is currently full of (imo trivial) content that Ihutchesson has seen fit to add, with (or w/out) the knowledge that I wasn't going to revert him. I think that rolling back all the additions is both fair and good for the article. That way, no one "wins"...except for the article, and any other editor who wishes to contribute. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The material that Jack Sebastian considers trivial has been looked at by other editors.

1. Mr Stradivarius: "I think that it is basically good material. The Stephen King material is not just trivia, as it is linked to two main points about the series." archived DRN
2. Noleander: "The material would be undeniably good for the article if there were WP:Secondary sources that described the references/allusions." diff (I have since supplied a number of secondary sources.)
3. Hunster: "Keep, as there are sources (albeit not the best) and it adds good and interesting content which ties together this work with numerous other works by King." diff

The latter two were responding to my RfC on the material.

The claim of trivia has not found support, but that hasn't stopped Jack Sebastian continuing to push that it is. There exists a consensus that the material currently found in the article is basically acceptable. Rolling it back to before Jack Sebastian came along is in my eyes also a step backwards and I'd guess everyone who looked at it would agree. I haven't touched any page Jack Sebastian has edited outside the Haven material. I tend not to edit many pages, so I'd simply recommend that Jack Sebastian avoid those few pages I do edit. -- I.Hutchesson ► 20:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Late for the hanging

I'm sorry. I come to this discussion late. Once again Jack Sebastian has moved an action which is in effect against me. The one thing he continually misses is the fact that he is at least the partial creator of his problems.

As I understand it, the only reason why he has stuck around the Haven pages is because he made an edit I changed. It was an edit which removed a large amount of material from the Haven article, an edit I was deceived about by his edit summary. I restored most of the material providing references to show that his original complaint was not well founded. That merely brought about a change in Jack Sebastian's logic and an edit war. He has haunted the Haven material ever since, cutting out as much material of mine as he could, eg all the references to music in Haven episodes (found in the show's closing credits), see here, here, etc. Any small issue he could object to he did. I removed an ex-cast member who had been reinserted, so he complained. I changed the color of the infobox, so he complained. These were significant issues for him and he went on and on about them. In fact we are here now because of one of them. Jack Sebastian, once offended, will not get back to his usual Wiki editing approach. He has stuck around and made work on the few pages I have edited extremely difficult.

He has misrepresented the views of other editors in this complaint, as I have already pointed out on the Haven talk page, diff.

His approach towards me:

"Yeah, this guy doesn't get it, so why waste what little time I do have to edit trying to chip away at his need to be right?" - 05:23, 13 September 2011 Jack Sebastian diff "If a better case of OWNership has been made, I've yet to see it. Screw it, I've heard enough. Ian isn't even the least bit sorry he has been edit-warring, or OWNing the article. He is unaware of the any but the broad strokes of the policies and guidelines that the rest of us have to follow, and he chooses not to ask for clarification when he is utterly in the dark. Unless he accepts mentoring, I think blocking is going to be the only way to correct the behavior." - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2011 Archived 3RR "And yeah, I just pointed out how your claim to have "no personal interest in the King material" was at best misleading and at worst a flat-out lie designed to make you look like some innocent waif being put upon." - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2011 Archived DRN "And I am going to state that if you cannot find a way to be more polite, you are not going to get any responses from me. I'm done dealing with the rude Ian. Show me you can be polite, or go away." - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2011 diff

I am not the only one to get this treatment. He has been just as friendly to at least one other editor in an unrelated issue, saying someone was coming across like a "tool", diff, and saying "I was not looking for you to be a complete dick about it", diff. When someone goes against Jack Sebastian he certainly doesn't like it. I recommend that he receive some sort of guidance.

An editor like myself who wants to help Wikipedia by editing content has a tough time facing an editor who will seek administrative means to get his way. The last time, he opened a DRN but within 20 minutes he'd decided that that wasn't enough and started 3RR proceedings against me. (It took just 43 minutes between this threat, "Please don't force me to take the next step here." *, and starting the current action.*) This sort of thing has gone on for a month, accusations of every conceivable type to assert his rightness. WP:OWNership, purveying trivia, OR, SYNTH, and a slew of other complaints. As I said to Toddst1, "I doubt if I can fart without receiving censure." *

A Wiki editor doesn't need to be put in this situation. It means that one has to stop their constructive work here and deal with accusation after accusation, complaint after complaint. This is inevitably frustrating and it is hard to remain restrained about it. I would like a reasonable solution to this proceeding. Jack Sebastian has tended not to work on any particular article, but to edit over a wide range of articles. He has stopped doing this. It would be better that he return to his usual custom rather than work up more rancor scratching at this. It would also be better that when he makes a complain, he sticks to his initial reasoning rather than changing it in order to bolster the complaint. -- I.Hutchesson ► 20:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Both editors are right in their own eyes, and I think they both have valid arguments.

Ihutchesson, I think it would be helpful if you acknowledged that your current editing behavior can be frustrating for Jack, regardless of whether the content you are adding is good or bad. You both just got off a block for edit warring, and right when the block ends you begin adding disputed material to the article. Since you are on the side of wanting to add material, and Jack is on the side of wanting to remove material, you clearly have the advantage because you're just adding material; it's Jack who has to revert to assert his position. Jack has been cordial by not reverting, but even if he does, he will be the one to hit 3RR first. The frustration that this causes is part of the reason that this situation is getting so heated. It would be cordial of you to make an effort to discuss the disputed changes on the talk page of the article before unilaterally making the changes, even though you can add whatever you want with impunity. I think Jack has made it clear which changes he disputes.

On the other hand, Jack, you need to pick your battles. If you complain about every last minor change to the article, including infobox colors, then everyone will be understandably annoyed whenever you open your mouth and will be unwilling to work with you. Leave emotion out of your arguments, and just clearly explain why you disagree, citing relevant policies and guidelines whenever possible. If you can convince Ihutchesson or get a clear consensus from other editors, then great. If not, then drop it and move on. Excessive complaining about minor changes can also be viewed as ownership behavior. Also, if you start an RfC about a dispute, make sure you clearly define the subject of the RfC, and what the possible outcomes are. Be specific. Then, when people vote it won't be difficult to analyze which side they are on, and there will be no arguments over which side has consensus.

I think that if you both grow up a little bit, acknowledge that you're both working towards the same goal, make an effort to be cordial and polite instead of defensive, and leave emotional/sarcastic comments out of your discussions; then this situation can be resolved quickly without the need for topic bans, interaction bans, or further blocks. —SW— ^confess 23:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat by Antiliberalpatriot

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Patriot missile shot down by own rocket booster, who knew? BLOCKED indef per WP:NLT by John.

In what seems sure as a blatent attempt to disrupt the project, a newly created account, Antiliberalpatriot, has already made a legal threat here"Wikipedia has been leftist biased for many years and it needs to cease before legal action is brought against its publishers". Dave Dial (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked pending the resolution of the threats. --John (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

With edits like The Nazi ideology most closely resembles the current American Democratic Party and left wing agenda, I doubt this account is long for this world, even if it retracts the legal threat.... --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to pile on but Godwin's Law that quick into an account's creation? Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If there's a wikipedia essay anywhere on famous last words, "I am Here to strengthen the Conservative presence on Wiki" would certainly be a candidate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Man... election year again and nutcases has gotten themselves internet access into Wikipedia, this is clearly a WP:Single-purpose account and it is ready to hold American democracy by the balls on Wikipedia in order to make a name for her/himself on the internet. Just apply an indef BLOCK per WP:NLT and spray a coat of Troll-Be-Gone® to prevent further nonsense, if they are not here to contribute then there's absolutely no need for us to pay attention to their rheotrics. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, strictly speaking Godwin's Law doesn't apply since it's on a topic about Nazism... King Canute might be a better comparison. Tabercil (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A block through competence is required would be more logical - comparing a far-right movement (Nazism) with a centre-right one (the Democrats), and then claiming they're both left-wing? Er, right (sic). Black Kite (t) (c) 18:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase Pat Paulsen, anyone who's on one extreme end or the other of the "bird" tends to fly around in circles. (Kind of like a boomerang, oddly enough.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My drive-by 2 pence: Yeah, en.WP articles carry all kinds of bias, cites to sources with sundry flaws and other woes, but I think it's funny/sad that along with the hopelessly empty LT, the editor seems unaware as to the lengthy historical background of the word liberal (never mind patriot) in stateside politics. Looks to me like someone who's maybe been steadily feasting on the sugary junk food of polemics for awhile read something shrill about WP on a website and thought they'd have a bash. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, very similar to Eddie Izzard's definition of being cool. :) Black Kite (t) (c) 22:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer his bit on Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop and WP:NFCC compliance

Recently, a debate has ensued on this project page with regards to NFCC compliance. Two of the most frequent editors (The Pink Oboe and Fry1989) who respond to requests on this page have become grossly uncivil (see below) and have been restoring images in violation of the WP:NFCC #9 policy, though they are fully aware of it. I attempted to get clarification from one of the editors (see discussion) that he would comply with the WP:NFCC policy, and though I asked several times he never answered. Instead, I get an apparent intention to keep violating the policy [26]. I started a thread to address edits like this and this, but have been met by considerable resistance, open hostility, and gross incivility.

The incivility has become rather severe; "there's always one dick at every party", "The only recurrent pattern here is your arrogance", "a dick who fucks up the IW page", "Ah, his holy dickness", "piss off with your Borg bullshit", and etc.

If you get past the overabundance of insults, both editors are insisting that I use a template to correct the problem. I've been asking them to use the template, as they are more knowledgeable about the usage of the template, rather than restoring the images in violation of policy. They are sometimes doing this, but at other times still continue to restore images in violation of policy without fixing the problem.

I am hopeful that someone would please step in and caution them about violations of WP:CIVIL, but more importantly a sternly worded caution regarding WP:NFCC compliance. Some assistance, please. I've placed a notice regarding this discussion on the thread regarding this issue at the talk page of WP:GL/I, where both of said editors are involved. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have warned both users; more severely Pink Oboe, as their issues with civility are not acceptable. Any more of this unacceptable behaviour will be met with blocks. If there are any more issues of this type please contact me or any other admin, quoting this thread. Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Since Pink Oboe responded to my warning by calling Hammersoft a "dick" and promising to continue violating our policies, I have blocked them for 24 hours. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hammersoft, why do you repeatedly make these types of changes and not use {{GLNF}}? You've been asked to use that template over and over again from what I can see, so why don't you? Scientizzle 22:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really the point; the point here is the user's serious civility issues and the fact that they revert Hammersoft's changes in violation of NFCC#9. They know restoring non-free in projectspace is a no-no, but they continue to do it. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I see many examples in the log where Pink Oboe is cleaning up NFCC violations (or fixing edits in a way that leave the image hidden). In several cases this was done by reverting a bad edit and then removing the images in accordance with the templates used by GL, but that brief revert really shouldn't be a problem. Maybe he makes a mistake sometimes (or perhaps loses his temper in this case), but I don't think I would accuse him of trying to systematically flout policy. Dragons flight (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Losing your temper is one thing; persistently calling people a dick or a fuckwit isn't. Have a look at Pink Oboe's edit summaries in his last 50 edits. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I disagree. I've been reading around for 15-20 minutes now and don't see any explanation as to why that particular template isn't a policy-compliant workaround that still provides functionality to for this working group. I'm not well-versed in image policy so I'm looking for a reason why this template isn't being used as requested (over and over). I'm not excusing incivility, but if this is a valid workaround template, then not using seems unnecessarily disruptive itself and can reasonably frustrate other editors. All I want to know: why not use this template? — Scientizzle 22:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• The point is that NFCC patrollers can't reasonably be expected to know all management templates across the project. Further, the people who do know the templates for their given area should be using them. These two editors sometimes do, and sometimes don't, in the process willfully violating WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• As I say, I've mainly blocked for the incivility (I've just noticed this as well). You'll have to ask Hammersoft why he isn't using the template, but the users can hardly complain when they don't use it themselves when they revert him (especially when they fail to use it and add an edit summary telling him to use it!). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• @Scientizzle; I believe it to be a reasonable expectation that people most familiar with how to use a template, with the most stake in given area of the project, should be encouraged to (a) use the template and (b) not violate a core policy of the project. There are a very large number of Wikipedia space pages on the project. I am not aware of even a fraction of the various templates that these Wikipedia space pages use in managing their work. Regardless, these editors are also reverting the bot. I note neither of them has complained to the bot owner, calling him a "dick" and demanding he modify his bot. Curious. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please explain to me why you don't appear to have ever used the template even though you are aware of it. — Scientizzle 22:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting that an NFCC patroller should be required to be aware of all templates a given area of the project uses before conducting any NFCC enforcement edits therein, and attempt to use such templates to conduct the NFCC enforcement? If that be the case, you should seek to have DASHBot shut down, as it doesn't comply with that. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Since you have been aware of this template for at least a day or two, I'm asking why you haven't used it. It's a simple question seeking an honest answer. — Scientizzle 22:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Because I honestly don't know how to use it, and don't feel that NFCC patrollers should be required to learn all management templates in a given area before conducting NFCC work in that area. If you're insistent on this requirement, are you going to be equally insistent with User:Tim1357, the operator of DASHBot? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• {[ec}}I've not insisted on anything; but I see that you have insisted on doing things your way only. If this template is a policy-compliant workaround that you've been asked to use since October 9, why not learn it? I mean, it looks reasonably simple, and you could ask how to use it. Don't you think if you had put in this modicum of effort, some of this could have been avoided? I think the incivility is unwarranted and, frankly, blockable (i.e., I have no problem with the block above), but it doesn't mean the underlying frustration is not understandable. (I'd be rather irritated myself if I had to deal with, say, a new page patroller that refused to use proper tags.) Can you see how this mess could have turned out differently? — Scientizzle 23:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So do you not know how to use the colon prefix method that was suggested by TPO? --31.6.26.83 (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• The colon prefix method is used by DASHBot and has been repeatedly openly reverted. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I could have sworn that the above question asked you specifically, not the bot. Why haven't YOU used the colon trick, after all your usual edits have also been reverted. So why can you not simply add a colon at the start of the link? Had you done so this would not have happened and you would have still been maintaining policy. So your excuse is? What? --64.9.146.138 (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I already replied to this. The use of the colon masking technique is being openly reverted. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and so is your method. The difference being that your method ruins functionality, is less effort than you go to now, yet you still won't use it. It seems to be that you are deliberately finding a way to be disruptive for no just reason. So have you personally used the colon trick and had the edit reverted on the workshop pages? --64.9.146.139 (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• As I noted below, I am happy to use the colon method and have done so on many occasions in the past, just not on this page. I would be happy to use this method on this workshop if I had reasonable confidence it would not be openly reverted, restoring the non-free violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• @Scientizzle; sorry, I didn't see your response until now. I've now taken a look at the template, and yes it is easy to use. But again, I don't think NFCC patrollers should have to learn this and any other requirements people think NFCC patrollers should be doing in NFCC enforcement. I've done a lot of this work, across an awful lot of pages. I've seen a rather incredible array of requests to do things differently. I've seen arguments about lack of consensus, demands I ask first, demands I replace with a compliant image, demands I ...you get the picture. I've performed thousands upon thousands of NFCC edits. If I had to keep track of all these requests (even if they were all reasonable), I would never be able to conduct NFCC enforcement. I'd be permanently lost trying to remember what to do. WP:NFCC #9 is very simple. Is the non-free image in question being displayed outside of the main article namespace, yes or no. If yes, it needs to be removed. I'm happy to put a colon before images, and do so on various pages (example), but DASHBot which uses that method is being openly reverted on WP:GL/I, so that solution isn't working either. That's why I came here. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• User:The Pink Oboe (who I blocked as above) asked me to copy this over Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• "The dick who is editing with policy is also editing out of policy, by being arrogant, lazy and fucking up the functionality of the Image Workshop. His worrying obsession with NFCC#9 is his excuse for being a twat. he is deliberately making the workshop non-functional. For the IW to work properly we have to be able to either see or be able to link to the image being requested. Now Mr Dick esq comes along, deletes both the image and the link making the request impossible to deal with unless we go looking for an invisible comment hidden in the source code of the request. In spite of being told of 2 methods of maintaining NFCC#9 compliance and maintaining IW functionality Hammersoft refuses to use them. One of the methods only involves putting a colon at the front of the link. But will Hammersoft do this? No, he has refused point blank. This I firmly definitely and firmly puts him in the "dick" category. His arrogance, his laziness, his Borg-like obsession with NFCC#9 and his truculence are disrupting a valuable resource with WP for no purpose. I would be grateful if you could copy and paste this as a response to his accusations at the incident board. Especially now you've effectively stopped me posting there. This is not an unblock request as I don't care one way or another, it's WP's loss if I can't sort out image requests for 24hrs, it's not my loss. This is a request though that Hammersoft either stays away from the IW or that he implements the methods we've informed him of."

I have revoked their talk page access for the duration of the block, but not extended the block. The commentary was far far beyond acceptable - even giving blocked users considerable lattitude to vent, launching a new series of gross personal attacks and escalating the situation that badly is not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Both User:The Pink Oboe and User:Fry1989 should be blocked for their wanton harassment; I cannot tell the difference that would warrant a block for one editor but not the other. –MuZemike 23:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)